Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you, Mr President. I would like to make some brief comments to set the seal on this debate, but first want to thank each of the speakers, to whom I have listened very attentively, for the quality of their interventions and their candour.
Finally, I would like to thank Mrs Randzio-Plath for her intervention. I can reassure her and state that we, like the Presidency, are determined to press ahead on the basis of the proposals made by Mrs de Palacio concerning European energy policy in the areas of reserves and conservation and support for renewable sources of energy, not least during the negotiations which we have just been talking about in the context of the IGC on the extension of qualified majority voting in environmental matters.
The Commission is striving to make progress, is doing its job, on all these issues. I know that in this matter, just as in the matter of maritime safety which I mentioned earlier, which was discussed at some length at the Nice European Council, we can count on the resolve of the current French Presidency of the Union.
To put it briefly, everybody has touched on the ‘larger states and smaller states’ debate, and I would like to join Mr Moscovici in saying that I feel that this is an inappropriate way of describing the division that exists. It is not that we are unaware of this division or act as if it did not exist. I simply feel that we have to move beyond and rise above it by means of proposals that ensure a more efficient functioning of the Community model in the spirit of the Treaty of Rome. On an issue that I regard as critical – that of the Commission itself – I have heard Mr Van den Bos echo the concerns of Mr Poettering regarding the place that is to be occupied by one or other country within the Commission.
Ladies and Gentlemen, none of the options that are on the table would entail a country ‘losing its Commissioner’, even if I feel that this to be an inappropriate description if one recalls that the Commission is an independent body. Under every option, each country will have at least one Commissioner. The question we must answer is whether all the countries will have a Commissioner at the same time, and thus whether we are to have a big – and one day a very big – Commission that will inevitably have been restructured, or if they are all to have one Commissioner but not necessarily at the same time. In the latter case, the question we must answer is when will this principle of a rotation which treats both larger and smaller states on a strictly equal basis come into effect.
Each option has significant consequences. Whatever the scenario, there will therefore be a major reform of the way that the Commission operates, and I feel that we must in the coming weeks make careful use of the time still available to us in order to assess the implications of each option before taking a decision at Nice, the aim being, I would repeat, to preserve within an enlarged Europe the effectiveness, credibility and if possible collegiate nature of the Commission.
A further word on the Charter. The Commission has been an active participant in the open discussions entered into via the Convention. I am thinking in particular of my friend and fellow Commissioner, Antonio Vitorino, who was very active throughout these discussions. I would point out that right from the start the Commission indicated that it was in favour of the idea of giving legal effect to this Charter. Personally speaking, I feel that the minimum could be, to echo what Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mrs Berès have said, a link with Article 6 of the Treaty, which could be established as soon as Nice. I nevertheless feel that we cannot stop there and that we must take things further after Nice. Mr Berthu talked about this Charter as if it were a thunderbolt that had dropped out of the sky.
All the same, we did make reference to the intelligent and open work that culminated in this Charter, in which national parliaments representing national opinions participated. The national governments participated fully and have all approved this text. We are thus talking about an open piece of work which has not fallen from on high or been imposed from above. That is why in the final analysis it has met with general approval. Both Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mr Barón Crespo have mentioned the European Parliament. I would like, in my turn, to confirm that we will be talking about Parliament during these negotiations. It is one of the points that have been broached in the discussions and I honestly feel that, beyond what we are able to achieve in the negotiations themselves, anything that the European Parliament itself can quite clearly say on the way it is to be structured after enlargement will be very useful to us because it will enlighten our work and the work of the Member States.
Finally, a word on the Biarritz spirit or climate: Mr Dupuis has surely misunderstood what I said. I am not of aware of having shown myself to be overoptimistic. In any case, I spoke of purpose and determination. I do not yet know whether we will achieve real reform at Nice, and one sufficient for a Union that has 27 Member States and quite clearly may subsequently have many more, provided that the democratic process in the Balkans is consolidated and strengthened. In any event, the Commission has its place and is striving to secure genuine reform. I simply said, Mr Dupuis, that success or failure, genuine reform or inadequate reform, would be assessed on the basis of whether the Community model – which does indeed, Mr Moscovici comprise the three institutions you mentioned, but others too – would emerge from Nice weakened, intact or strengthened. We are striving to strengthen it, and this is a way of allaying the concerns of many Member States, and not just the smaller Member States, on the place and the role that they will occupy within this Community model.
I have specifically mentioned some of the factors that will enable us to ascertain immediately whether the reform is sufficient or not. The extension of qualified majority voting and codecision to real issues, the preservation of Article 250 in its current form, the place and role of the Commission in closer cooperation, in respect of more than just the first pillar: these are some of the factors that will allow us see straight away whether we are talking of success or failure. On this point I must make it quite clear that I totally agree with what Elmar Brok and Professor Tsatsos have just said.
Lastly, as Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Poettering have just suggested, I believe that we must indeed raise the debate to the political level and the correct level, that of the final decision, which is to say the level of Heads of State and Government. I am personally very pleased that the discussions at Biarritz were marked by the desire to come up with genuine reform. This was my impression at least. My interpretation of the climate and the weather at Biarritz might well have differed from that of Mr Moscovici, who doubtless knows the Pyrenees better than I do. It was cloudy and it was windy, but what I really wanted to emphasise was the tone of the debates, and their invigorating and purposeful nature. This was what struck me personally, and gives me some confidence that there will be genuine results at Nice."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples