Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-072"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
"Thank you very much, Mr President. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the Laeken Summit is the following: that the Council is able to reverse the trend seen in Nice, that is to say, that we move away from this feeling of failure at the summit that marked the end of the French Presidency a year or so ago, towards a feeling of success at the Laeken summit at political level and for Europe’s citizens. I think that this is what the excellent Leinen and Méndez de Vigo report is calling for. In addition to the details, the concrete proposals, which are, of course, important, the essential thing is to develop a new perspective at Laeken, a constitutional perspective, and this means, without any doubt and as I said before, reversing the current trend. The method for the forthcoming reform is of fundamental importance. As is the Convention. But neither must we let the Convention develop into some kind of tedious rigmarole, and in order for this not to be the case, the Convention should be called in order to prepare reform with true content and a real agenda. If the agenda for the forthcoming reform remains restricted to Declaration 23 annexed to the Treaty of Nice, we will not be getting off to the right start, and the report that this House will, probably, approve tomorrow, calls for more than this. It calls for a more wide-ranging agenda. Above all, it calls for an agenda that, once again, includes the policies of the Union and the institutions that are intended to manage these policies. It also calls for the Union to have its own legal personality. It is for this agenda, and so as not to distract public opinion, that the Convention has to be called. The Convention needs an agenda, but it also needs a mandate, a membership, a working method and a timetable to make it worthwhile. I would like to highlight the words of Mr Méndez de Vigo: it would be incredible to keep the same number of representatives of the European Parliament as in the Convention that had the task of drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when the total number of participants in the next Convention will increase significantly. This imbalance would, of course, be unacceptable. Secondly, the Convention should work not on the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of majority consensus. I think that this is the exact definition. It should have the right to decide who to choose as President and the right to finish its work on time. This is important in order to ensure that the conclusions of the Convention are not put on ice, because although time, heals all, it also makes us forget. This is the commitment that we ask of Laeken: an ambitious reform with a different method of achieving more Europe and a better Europe."@en1
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples