Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.4.3-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this debate, after listening to each and every parliamentary speaker with the attention they deserved and before the extremely important votes you will be holding tomorrow on the various proposals, I want once again to thank the two rapporteurs, Jo Leinen, who is present here, and Mr Dimitrakopoulos, for the extremely thorough and useful job they have done. As I pointed out this morning, they have sought the greatest possible convergence between the Commission and the European Parliament, in order to imbue these negotiations with the political impetus they need. Following on from what Mr Seixas da Costa said, let me also say, and I can testify to this, that these negotiations conducted under the Portuguese Presidency have indeed, as the Portuguese Minister just said, been conducted with great authority, realism and pragmatism. From that point of view, as I had hoped, the Portuguese Presidency has proved itself to be in no way an interim or secondary presidency. It has an extremely important role to play and it really is playing it, in order to make the necessary progress before handing over to the French Presidency. And from that point of view, I want to thank the Council.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I just want to make three comments at the conclusion of this debate. Firstly, many speakers discussed the question of the equilibrium between what are termed the large and the small states. We are well aware that this equilibrium is both necessary and difficult to achieve. It is necessary because, since 1957, all the states are recognised as equal, as having equal sovereignty; but at the same time it is difficult to achieve because they do not all have the same size of population and because, out of respect for democracy, we must by one means or another take account of the fact that the number of citizens differs from country to country. What I mean to say is that for its part the Commission has sought to establish this equilibrium in the proposals it put forward on 26 January, and which it has defended week after week, as indeed it did on the double majority question. One way of achieving an equilibrium is for qualified-majority voting always to secure the support of at least a majority of states and half the population.
We even went a little further on an issue which has given rise to much comment and at times to anxiety, namely the Commission. We have gone beyond the search for an equilibrium and proposed an egalitarian solution in relation to the composition of the Commission. And to those who are worried, let me say again that I have seen no sign of any proposal that any Member State should not have a Commissioner. What we proposed, let me repeat, is one Commissioner per Member State, but with two options. I would like you to consider these options carefully, and indeed we have the time to carefully consider the consequences of these options between now and the end of the year. The first option is one Commissioner per Member State on a permanent basis, all sitting at the same time, but with a Commission which will one day have 30 or 35 Commissioners, which will inevitably mean a hierarchy within the College. The second option is a Commission with one Commissioner per Member State, but not all sitting at the same time, which would mean the Commission would remain more collegiate by nature.
That, ladies and gentlemen, remains our aim: to establish an equilibrium between the small and the large states. In that regard, I share the concerns expressed by a number of speakers.
Second concern: the role of the European Parliament as the driving force, as referred to by Jo Leinen. As I said this morning, I really believe that we, and you, ladies and gentlemen, during your term of office, must spend some time explaining these European issues not just in your constituencies, your countries, but everywhere else too, to all the citizens, and as often as possible. Opportunities must also be created to convince and speak to the national parliaments. President Napolitano proposed the idea of an interparliamentary conference. At his invitation I myself took part in a meeting between the national parliaments and the European Parliament, where I found a great deal of interest expressed. The Commission will be prepared to take part in any exercise aimed at enhancing this dialogue and this mutual understanding between the national parliaments, which we need in order to ratify a genuine reform, and the European Parliament.
Lastly, I heard Mr Poos say earlier that this IGC 2000 was not the end of the story. Of course we know that history will not stop at the end of the year 2000 and that there will be further institutional changes. But let me state quite emphatically and formally that, after the end of the year, we will not be returning to some of the important issues under consideration during these negotiations. These issues are: the composition of the Commission, the scope of qualified-majority voting, the composition of the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice and the voting system. One way or another, these questions will be settled at the end of the year and they will be settled for the long term, the very long term.
So we must take the time to reflect carefully about what we are doing. There is no way that later, when we have 20, 25 or 30 Member States, we will be able to do what we did not manage to do either in Amsterdam or today, this year, for lack of political will. So I hope that together, working with the Council, we will manage to give a sufficiently strong political impetus so that in the final analysis, at the end of this year, we succeed with these negotiations, rather than merely concluding them, and that together we demonstrate a collective political courage that goes beyond considerations based merely on caution or national interests."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples