Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.1.3-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"At the most recent Council, we at least managed to reach agreement on this, for that is the most important point. It is easy to proclaim that a European mandate must be obtained, also for extradition. The most important point had not yet been reached, namely an agreement on the principle of the abolition of dual criminality, not only for terrorist acts but also for other serious crimes. We must indeed challenge a reductionist attempt to render the provision only applicable to terrorist acts. That was not the conclusion reached in Tampere. The Tampere conclusions were in favour of broadening the scope, in other words for other, serious crimes to fall within its scope.
I am therefore personally optimistic with regard to 6 and 7 December. I am addressing Mr Poettering and also Mr Cox, in particular. But have no fear, if the Ministers for Internal Affairs and Justice fail to come up with the goods, then I will be taking the dossier to the European Council of Laeken on 15 December where the Heads of State and Government will decide. However, I am convinced that the Ministers for Justice will not let things get so far that ultimately, the Heads of Government will have to solve a technical problem which is predominantly concerned with modality.
Finally, I also should like to briefly comment on the third point, namely the Union’s future. I believe that we are all agreed that 11 September has shown that a more integrated, more progressive Union is needed, a Union with greater ability to act, which has better instruments at its disposal, and which – certainly as far as the foreign and defence policy is concerned – has greater powers. To pave the way for this is exactly the intention of the Laeken Declaration. Therefore, I can already give very concrete answers to the generally positive evaluation based on that convention.
The convention is a fact. Yes, Mr Poettering, the presidency is a limited presidency in line with the request of all groups, comprising five people including the president of the convention. Yes, the Member States and MEPs are proportionately represented, although exact numbers will need to be discussed in due course. Yes, civil society is involved, not by setting up a new body but by creating a network around the convention whereby groups in society can refer to the convention and whereby, conversely, the convention can also seek advice from European affairs study centres, trade unions, any other organisations which exist in our society, as well as civil society. A flexible network around the convention therefore seems preferable to the organisation of a special forum.
Finally, I should like to respond to the most fundamental question which has been repeatedly raised here. Indeed, it is related to that text. If that text originates from that convention, how will the Council then relate to it? Will it be considered a report that can be dismissed and need not be taken into consideration? A discussion has therefore arisen as to the question of whether that is now a consensus text or a text providing options.
The answer is very simple. That will, at any rate, be my reply in a few weeks’ time when we are all meeting in Laeken. If everyone is agreed, then we will have a consensus text. In other words, it will then be quite clear that this is an important – if not the most important – contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference.
If no consensus is reached at the convention, then I obviously believe that options should be given, not in a neutral manner, but in such a way that the majority and minority options are clearly indicated, as well as the individual option of one member of the convention, if applicable.
It was also my intention to talk this over with the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Napolitano, and the two draftsmen of opinion on the future of Europe. I cannot see the sense of unleashing a holy war among ourselves as to the exact significance of that text.
If consensus is reached, then we have a consensus text. If we cannot have a consensus text because we failed to reach consensus, options must be indicated, but not in a neutral manner, not in a way as if we were supplying a list without any significance. Instead, we should highlight the majority and minority options, in other words, the wishes and trends which originated at the convention and which have been brought forward."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples