Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.4.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Laeken Summit must take us a considerable step further in the process of European integration.
Lastly, I see that we agree that the Intergovernmental Conference should be asked to complete its work before the start of the electoral campaign for the next European elections.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a crucial stage in the life of the Union. We must prepare for this stage using all the tools available to us, not just reform of the Treaties, which we have already discussed. This is why, at the beginning of my term of office, I made the reform of governance, that is improving our way of working without changing the Treaties, one of the Commission’s strategic objectives.
Now I would, therefore, like to focus briefly on the Kaufmann report on the reform of governance. Firstly, I congratulate Mrs Kaufmann, the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Napolitano, and the European Parliament as a whole for the speed and efficiency with which the work, which has involved no less than ten Parliamentary committees, has been carried out.
Here, too, we agree on a significant number of points. Both our institutions consider that we must conduct a critical review of governance at European level, and reform it where necessary.
The European Parliament supports the creation of an interinstitutional working group as I proposed in my speech of 2 October. The Commission is ready to embark on this dialogue and we hope that the Council will also take part, at least where matters which are the competence of all three institutions are concerned. I reiterated this point today, a few hours ago at the meeting of the trialogue, and I hope that we will be able to make progress in this matter.
Moreover, the European Parliament shares the Commission's view that we need to streamline budgetary procedures and make the Council's activities more transparent. What ultimately counts is the fact that the Commission and Parliament agree that democratic legitimacy must remain the central political point of reference in the issue of governance, and that efficiency, although also extremely important, must remain a secondary consideration.
The Kaufmann report also highlights a number of things that are of concern to Parliament. First of all, I want to stress that the proposals put forward by the Commission in the White Paper are intended to strengthen the democratic process and therefore to strengthen the role of the European Parliament. I am still of the opinion that the European Parliament is the central element of this democratic legitimisation, without which there can be no real support for our policies from the citizens of Europe.
However, let us look at these concerns as well. Firstly, the fear has been expressed that the European Parliament will be supplanted by civil society. I can assure you that this is not the Commission’s intention in that it was, in fact, the Commission that proposed that each institution should revert to performing its original tasks and that the respective responsibilities of the institutions should be redefined.
Secondly – and this is the opinion of the Commission – the European Parliament is the supreme democratic expression of European civil society and the natural representative of its demands. At the same time, the Commission has to take informed decisions when drawing up legislative proposals. It cannot do this without appropriate consultation – and I repeat, consultation – with economic and social operators and members of the scientific, technological and cultural communities. We therefore need to rationalise and structure a dialogue that has, for a long time, been a constant feature of our way of working. I have read what the Kaufmann report has to say on this matter very carefully and assure you that we will pay the greatest attention to the recommendations it makes, including those dealing with methodology.
Similarly, the Commission does not now intend and has never intended in the past to call into question the prerogatives of the European Parliament as a co-legislator. Our proposals regarding co-regulation and self-regulation are only intended to prevent long-established practices from leading to anarchy and the abuses that you, yourselves, have pointed out. This is the sole objective of the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, our proposals recommend that any use of co-regulation should be decided on a case-by-case basis, after the European Parliament has delivered its opinion.
Today you are going to vote on two reports which concern the very structure of the European project and the direction it will take in the coming years: Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo’s report on the future of the Union and Mrs Kaufmann’s report on European governance. In order to address these matters, we must start by answering certain fundamental political questions. What are the new internal and external challenges facing the Union? How can we simplify the institutional structure of the Union? How should the various competences be assigned and how should we involve national Parliaments? Indeed, the organisational model cannot be an end in itself; it must be a means to our achieving the objectives in our sights. It must reflect the idea of society that the vast majority of our citizens want. The Communication on the future of the Union, which we will be presenting prior to the Laeken European Council, takes as its starting point precisely these considerations, which I see are also addressed in both the reports under debate today.
I have already said that the conditions and restrictions governing the use of these new legislative instruments should be the subject of a debate, and, if possible, of an agreement, between the institutions, preferably within the interinstitutional working group I proposed on 2 October. That is why the working group is so important. The same method should be applied to the use of the framework directives, by which I mean legislative acts setting out principles and guidelines that give the Commission and the authorities responsible for execution in the Member States greater powers to adopt executive legislation.
I have already expressed the Commission’s belief that Parliament and the Council will have to adopt a simple legal provision to enable the legislator to monitor and control the actions of the executive. There is a variety of national experience we could draw on to improve the implementation of Community policies and enable the legislative authorities to guide and control executive activities effectively. This is also a matter for detailed negotiation between the three institutions.
I have already had occasion to say that the mechanism used by the legislator to ‘call back’ executive measures adopted by the Commission may not be the best possible method, or, at any rate, it needs considerable improvement. However, the Commission will reflect actively on other possibilities and expects to be able to present tangible proposals, if possible during the interinstitutional debate that I hope takes place. I would, moreover, reiterate that it would be inappropriate to decide on a practical action plan on the way the Community legislates – what is commonly termed better regulation – before all the institutions have debated it. For this reason, in line with the undertaking I gave before this House, the Commission only intends to approve a consultation paper in the next few days which will focus the interinstitutional dialogue on certain priority measures that have also been suggested by the intergovernmental group chaired by Mr Mandelkern. Furthermore, the Commission will work towards persuading the Laeken European Council to adopt this course and call on the institutions to develop the coordinated strategy desired at Lisbon by June 2002.
Lastly, I would like to clarify a few points concerning the action of regulatory agencies. I agree with you that we must prevent executive action from becoming fragmented and avoid weakening the democratic controls. It is also true that the Commission cannot continue to take full political responsibility for the actions of agencies over which it has only a partial influence. For this reason, we propose to define a general model for agencies which ensures the balanced representation of Parliament, Council and Commission. Our most recent proposals are along these lines, but they do need the firm support of Parliament if we are to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago, we presented and discussed with you our report on the progress made on enlargement, progress that allows us to pursue the objective, which I now feel is realistic, of admitting up to ten new Member States before the 2004 elections. Today, the only thing I want to stress is the importance of continuing to increase the candidate countries' involvement in the Union’s activities. This is why the involvement of representatives of the candidate countries in the work of the Convention is of paramount importance. For the same reasons, we are increasingly involving the applicant countries in the activities and programmes of the Union.
In addition to enlargement and the reform of the Treaties, I would like to focus very briefly on some other items that are on the agenda of the Laeken European Council. The Union has played a very active part in the diplomatic efforts relating to the current international crisis. Moreover, the visits I have made with the President-in-Office of the Council to Washington, the Middle East and, most recently, to India and Pakistan have strengthened my deep conviction that it is necessary, or rather, essential, for the Union to play a global role. We have also presented a number of proposals, in different areas, which are necessary for combating terrorism. Now we must continue along this path and continue to show firm political will and great determination. In particular, we must maintain and develop our commitment to the full and effective execution of the Tampere mandate, on which we will present a report to the European Council.
Overall, the process launched has been successful. It must be developed as transparently and visibly as possible so that our citizens can see in it a response to their everyday security concerns. The Member States are starting to recognise the need to draw on the principles and tools that characterise the Community method, such as the principle of mutual recognition although there is, however, still a certain reluctance among the Member States to move forward in sensitive areas such as immigration or visas, and this must be overcome by a stronger political will.
Madame President, ladies and gentlemen, the challenges before us and recent international events, confirm the relevance and validity of the European project, which must be strengthened and adapted to respond fully to our citizens' new demands. The Community method, which succeeds in combining legitimacy, democracy and effectiveness, is still the best way to build the new Europe. For this reason, future Treaty reforms must be aimed at reinvigorating and strengthening it.
First of all, let us examine the report on the future of the Union. If the Union were to confine its activities to the policy areas it concerned itself with in the sixties and seventies, the current institutional framework would probably be adequate, but the political situation has changed: our citizens are asking the Union to do much more, to resolve complex problems that only the current form of the Union makes it possible to deal with satisfactorily. However, the current institutional structures are unable to meet these challenges effectively. For this reason, the institutional system needs to be reformed so that the Union can take the decisions its citizens expect from it more effectively. We cannot continue to create fresh expectations without equipping ourselves with the means to satisfy them. Therefore, we must introduce institutional reforms that go beyond those decided upon at Nice. We must also preserve the essence of the Community method, based on the institutional triangle, the mechanism which is really behind the 50-year long success story of the European Community. It is a well-balanced method based on a strong Parliament, a strong Council and a strong Commission as well as – in addition to the triangle – a strong European Court of Justice. It is the only method that will allow us to combine efficiency and democracy, but it needs to be reformed and adapted to cope with Europe’s development and the Union's new priorities.
At the first part-session of the European Parliament after Nice, we all – Parliament, the President-in-Office of the European Council and I myself – came to a realisation: the democratic dimension of the method of reforming the Treaties needs to be strengthened. In particular, there is a strong demand for the role of democratically elected representatives not to be confined to ratification of the basic texts of our Union. In the current legal situation, given the constraints upon us, the best solution is to pave the way for the Intergovernmental Conference, which, I reiterate, I hope will be short and decisive, with thorough preparations bringing together the institutions and the national and European Parliaments.
In two weeks' time, the Laeken European Council will take a historic decision, setting up the Convention charged with preparing for the Intergovernmental Conference. A Convention based on the Convention that drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights will meet the need to increase people's involvement in the creation of a Union which has been a Union of States and a Union of peoples right from the outset. This formula, which the Commission and the European Parliament have been advocating since the beginning of the year, has gradually been gaining support, even in those Member States that, just a few months ago, if we remember what happened at Gothenburg, showed great reluctance to accept it and even opposition. The setting up of a Convention, its composition and structure and the further development of the agenda for the constitutional reform of the Union are the focal points of the Laeken Declaration.
These matters are examined in the motion for a resolution before you today. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mrs Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo, on the excellent report they have produced on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The European Commission basically agrees with much of the report. Indeed, Parliament and the Commission both believe that it should take as its starting point the four points set out at Nice, which, as the report clearly shows, actually affect more areas than is at first apparent. In any case, it would be unthinkable to limit the areas a Convention can discuss when most of its members will be Members of Parliament. They will therefore need to address all the questions of sufficient relevance.
With regard to certain aspects of the composition of the Convention, however, the Commission would ask the European Parliament to reflect further. As you know, there is considerable support for the idea that the Chair of the Convention should be appointed by the Laeken European Council. I, too, speaking on behalf of the Commission, am in favour of this, because neither the mere existence of the Convention nor even the fact that it works well will suffice: the Convention will have to convince the Member States. It will be far easier for a Chair appointed by the European Council, who enjoys the confidence of the Heads of State or Government, to create the necessary atmosphere of trust between the Convention and the European Council.
We fully support the proposal that the Chair of the Convention should participate in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference as well. However, we do disagree on one point in that the Commission considers that the Presidium should be smaller than is recommended in the motion for a resolution you are going to vote on today, with one representative for each component group. The Presidium has to organise the Convention's work. There is no need for all opinions, tendencies and interests to be represented within its structure.
The motion for a resolution calls upon the Convention to adopt unanimously a single, coherent proposal that can serve as the sole basis for the negotiations and decisions of the Intergovernmental Conference. I hope this happens and I will be very pleased if it does, but we must be realistic. It may, indeed, prove objectively impossible to find a broad consensus without lowering our sights considerably or too far. In view of this, I would prefer to embark on the Intergovernmental Conference with a mixture of stronger and weaker options so that there will still be a chance of achieving incisive solutions, rather than lowering the Convention’s sights before the Conference has even begun its work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples