Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.4.2-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Secondly, I do not want people thinking they can put it about – I do not know where you get your information, Mr Poettering – that one draft gave Poland fewer votes than Spain. There was a technical error which meant that, momentarily…
Mr Lannoye talked about a setback for enlargement. What would have happened if there had been no agreement on enlargement? I think it is a bit extreme to talk about a setback there. Anyway, all the countries concerned were unanimous in approving what was done in Nice. He also mentioned reversal for the European Parliament. I listed the areas where progress has been made earlier. I am not going to go over that again. Perhaps we did not make as much progress as you were hoping for, but you know, there again, some countries had reservations. Still, there has been no reversal and the European Parliament can never have been – I think this can be said, I am speaking under the eye of the President and those responsible – can never have been as much involved and consulted as it has been during the French Presidency. I would just like to make that point.
Mr Wurtz mentioned the human tide in Nice. Not counting certain irresponsible troublemakers who, of course, turned up with intentions which had nothing to do with the progress of human thought, there was indeed excellent and extensive participation, for which the European Confederation of Trade Unions was largely responsible. That was not a problem; I think it was a form of participation in the general debate.
Indeed, we should try to ensure better conditions for a more general debate, which is more inclusive of civil society, if only to give our thoughts some oxygen. That is often difficult to do, precisely because people do not necessarily always have the same ulterior motives. But when it comes to globalisation, which calls for very broad public debate, we need to find ways to allow everyone to express their views somehow, in a calm atmosphere.
Globalisation is inevitable; it means considerable progress in terms of standards of living, social advances and economic development, which determines everything else. But if we are not careful, globalisation will also entail grave dangers like exclusion: exclusion of some countries, indeed a growing number of countries, and exclusion within the countries of a growing number of men and women. It will also entail considerable risk to the balance of our ecosystem, our ability to bequeath a suitable environment to our successors; it will entail dangers for development, notably because of modern communications techniques and cyber crime. These are serious dangers and it is our duty to control and humanise globalisation.
It is true that some leaders are getting a bit carried away here by the cult of theory and, one way or another, all shades of public opinion need to be expressed. On this point I recognise the value of the arguments set out by Mr Wurtz.
I am grateful to my friend Charles Pasqua who was kind enough to compliment me on my physical prowess. That does not surprise me and I thank him for it. What does surprise me is the philosophical direction of his criticism, because what is he really telling us? He is telling us that within these walls and at Nice we have taken empty decisions or decisions which will not be implemented for a long time. And he adds that we have decided on a handful of targets which the Member States are free to apply if they want to. So that should not worry you…
… and that does not justify your claim that those empty and distant decisions, or those targets, whether applied or not, amount to an insane abdication of the sovereignty of the nations of Europe. There seems to be a contradiction there…
… that I cannot entirely resolve. But, after all, I do know and appreciate the subtlety of Charles Pasqua’s thought, I have known him a long time and consider him a friend. So I will have a good think and try to understand his argument.
Coming to Mr De Gaulle’s speech, I have to say that I am simply not capable of penetrating the subtleties and nuances of his remarks. So I leave the full responsibility for his assertions to him.
Mr Saint-Josse said there is a lack of public debate. I have already responded on that score and I fully endorse what he said about the need to improve public debate considerably. I will not repeat what I said, but it is true that citizens too often feel alienated from decisions taken in forums they do not know. That is one of the challenges we must take up.
Finally, I would say to Mr Hager that in my view the instrument of enhanced cooperation is a useful instrument giving Europe a dynamic, and lighting the way ahead as Mr Romano Prodi said just now, I think. Personally, I am very much in favour of it.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you.
No, no, please, I was in charge of it. Irony on a matter like this is misplaced.
There was a technical error on one paper, momentarily. Actually it was a typing error, and the paper was immediately withdrawn and of course the right figures were put in. Nobody could have imagined that anyone – certainly not the French Presidency, everyone knows what close ties France has always had with Poland – was suggesting handicapping Poland by comparison with Spain, when their populations are just about the same. I needed to say that to stop false information getting about.
Mr Barón Crespo mentioned the Charter. The French Presidency is absolutely open about incorporating the Charter into the Treaty. Some countries are not in favour of that, as you know. It was never envisaged that this would be an item on the Nice agenda. From the start the issue was always to be held over to the next presidency.
Like a number of other speakers, Mr Barón Crespo also mentioned the defects in the method. First, I entirely endorse your support for the convention method, and I will tell you the whole truth: when I heard that the convention method had been chosen for drawing up the Charter, I was sceptical. I have to say that the facts have proved me wrong, because it has been a great success, and that means the method was a good one. I think so and I have taken the opportunity to emphasise that, at Nice especially. It should also be said that the way the convention is being chaired by President Herzog is absolutely exemplary, which also makes things easier, of course.
No doubt we do need to reform the method. And I know the Commission – President Prodi mentioned this just now – should be making some proposals on this. Certainly something needs to be done about it. It is not normal to work day and night, keep staff working when they have hardly had a wink of sleep for three days, and still hope to draft decisions or take decisions in a calm atmosphere. I think that is right. Obviously, there is all the advance preparation. It was not wasted because it meant a whole series of issues that had been dealt with earlier did not have to be raised at Nice. I am thinking of the tax package, the Social Agenda, and lots of other things. But in the end, on the essential points – and this is in the nature of things – the Heads of State and Government reserve the right to wait till the last minute to take decisions or accept compromises, and they will never allow staff to deal with those issues at an earlier stage. So there is a problem with the method and, as several speakers have said, it ought to be reformed.
Mr Cox paid warm homage to the Commission and I naturally endorse that homage. He also mentioned something President Prodi said, which I particularly endorse and which brings me back to my first remark: we must be ambitious, President Prodi said, but we must temper our ambition with realism. That is wise, and we must always remember it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples