Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.4.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"May I offer my congratulations to the co-rapporteurs for an excellent report and also to the Belgian Presidency for having carried the idea, born in Parliament, of preparing the next Intergovernmental Conference by means of a Convention nearly to fruition, although we still have the Laeken Summit to come.
This is a dramatic improvement on the preparations of previous Intergovernmental Conferences. Instead of the usual group of foreign ministry officials meeting together behind closed doors we will have a publicly representative body taking ideas from a wide public debate and coming up with a coherent set of proposals for reform. This is a tremendous opportunity but does not guarantee results and it is for us to make something of it. We will do so if we avoid divisions on the theology or vocabulary of European integration where we are sometimes divided on the word even though we are united on the substance.
Let me give a couple of examples: in some political parties and countries the word "federalism" is mistakenly equated with centralism and they talk of creating a centralised super-state in the way that Mr Farage spoke earlier. That is not what anybody wants and if you define federalism as different levels of governance, as decentralised as possible but centralised where necessary with each level democratically structured, then we already have the beginnings of a federal-type system and I am happy, under that definition, to proclaim myself a federalist.
In some countries the word "constitution" is an almost sacred text that has emerged after revolution or after national independence. In other countries such as the United Kingdom it is a more pragmatic concept. In that pragmatic sense we already have a European constitution, not a very good one, but we have it and we should improve it further. The constitution is the Treaties which lay down the field of competence of the EU, the powers of the institutions, the legislative and the budgetary procedures.
Let us recognise that
they form our constitution. Let us improve our constitution by firstly codifying it to make it simple and clear in a single text so that citizens can see how this constitution operates, and secondly by clarifying it in several ways: clarifying the responsibilities, what the Union is and is not responsible for and clarifying the structures. Let me give one example of confusion that we have now. The functions of Mr Solana and Mr Patten should be merged into a single individual to represent the Union externally, perhaps with a special status as a specially appointed Vice-President of the Commission. Finally, as regards clarity and democratic accountability: it is essential that all legislation passes the two tests of acceptability to the Council representing the States and acceptability to Parliament representing the citizens, a double guarantee as to the quality and acceptability of European legislation.
I said this is an opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. We must fight to make the necessary changes come about through the Convention."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples