Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, today’s debate on the oral question on the follow-up to the Nice European Council, even though the draft Treaty has not yet been signed and the next IGC is not due to be convened until 2004, is clear indication of just how impatient some parties are to launch another round of negotiation. For these people, particularly for the Commission – as the Commission President has just stated – this is supposed to be, at long last, the great European constitutional process that the Nice Council denied itself, a process which should be set in motion forthwith by means of a European convention inspired by that which, last year, drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Such unseemly haste, such over-excitement, must not, however, be seen as a substitute for due consideration. The concept of a European Constitution makes reference to the concept of a European State, which is something that the nations of Europe do not wish to see. Moreover, the Nice Council, please note, refrained from including this idea in the objectives for the future IGC. What the Europe of the future actually needs is not the status of a future European State with its own constitution but a network of nations that is respectful of the national democracies and is enshrined in a fundamental treaty.
In the short term, we must consider the method of the future debate. Let us be honest, the convention which framed the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a failure because it continually muddled areas of jurisdiction and confused areas of responsibility, and came up in the end with a text which, although it might have been music to the ears of those advocating the European superstate, was not acceptable to the members of the Union as a whole.
It is true that in future we shall have to have a different procedure for preparing for IGCs, but it will certainly not be through bodies such as the convention existing in a state of perfect weightlessness. That would only force us into new deadlocks. In the first instance, debate with regard to the forthcoming IGC, must be organised in and around the national parliaments and on their responsibility. In the second place, the forthcoming IGC should negotiate only credible proposals, i.e. those supported by at least one in four of the national parliaments within the European Union following votes in their parliaments. In this way we would be sure of not wandering off track and we would remain firmly anchored to the national democracies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples