Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-05-Speech-4-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021205.2.4-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"President Prodi, we have listened attentively, of course, to your speech and have drawn some positive aspects from it as well as others with which we cannot agree. This is to be expected and is healthy in a democracy. What needs to be emphasised is that this is a significant contribution to the definition of the Europe of the future, which, alongside other contributions, will enable the Convention to continue its work to achieve a result which is based on consensus and which is politically realistic. This is the only way in which we can hope to wield some power and influence over the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.
In addition to various proposals and concrete solutions that we will be discussing in the Convention and which of course reflect the position of the Commission and its idea of increasing internal power within the existing institutional framework, the main conclusion we drew from your words was the concern to answer one key question. The fundamental issue that everyone, including the Commission, has to face is how to maintain an enlarged European Union’s ability to pursue its fundamental aims of development and economic and social cohesion and freedom and security for the present and future citizens of its Member States.
We must acknowledge that European integration is an increasingly complex process, not only as a consequence of its internal dynamic, which is a victim of the natural conflict between national sovereignties and the concept of consolidating a European sovereignty, but also because this is happening against an international backdrop that is increasingly subject to the consequences and dangers of globalisation, to the threats of terrorism, to violent conflicts more or less everywhere, to financial, environmental, and energy crises as well as unemployment, exclusion and poverty. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that, in the Convention, all issues have been discussed openly, frankly and fairly. We cannot have closed issues and nor must obstacles be thrown in the way of the debate. The peoples of the current and future Member States demand and deserve this.
We feel that confidence in the Convention is, in fact, growing, because, in addition to the now traditional Community institutions, it also encompasses national institutions, in other words, the governments and the parliaments of the Member States and of the candidate countries. Without wishing to state that there are two sides involved, not least because, as a result of circumstance, all parties have become mixed up together within the Convention, and rightly so, the fact is that this national component provides added value to the debate. I say this because, instead of there being one European public, we now have fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and later there will be even more national public opinions and it is to these that we should be addressing our words, because these have the ability to influence the direction Europe will take.
Let us speak, however, in practical terms. What is at stake here? In political terms, what is at stake is questioning, debating and defining ‘things’ as simple as the democratic legitimacy and the governability of the European Union; also at stake are the aims of the Union and its place in the world, the allocation and the definition of EU competences and their adaptation to the Community acquis, the simplification of the Union’s instruments, its democracy, transparency and efficiency, the role of national parliaments, the efficiency of the decision-making process and the functioning of the institutions in an enlarged Union and the drafting or otherwise, of a European Constitution. Everything, then, is at stake and rightly so, because this is how debates should be undertaken.
Consequently, the first question that we should ask is: what sort of Europe do we want to build? To this end we need to define this European model in political terms. This task is the responsibility as well as the duty of everyone. The Commission has today once again performed this task and I could add that we have confidence – still – in the nations and, consequently, we believe in Europe. We trust in the Nation-State, and consequently believe in a Europe based on its nations having the freedom to take decisions which is underpinned by the States having equal legal status. We have confidence in the peoples of Europe and therefore believe in a Europe that means greater democracy and not the opposite, which is greater bureaucracy. We have confidence in diversity and we therefore believe in a Europe that respects the traditions of its Member States, preserves their cultural heritage and safeguards their respective languages. We have confidence in subsidiarity, and therefore believe in a Europe that does not seek to retain for itself decisions that could more advantageously be taken by the Member States. We have confidence in solidarity, and therefore believe in a Europe in which economic and social cohesion also results in the prosperity of the peoples and of all the remote and outermost regions without exception. We have confidence in peace, stability and security and therefore believe in a Europe that is united but not uniform, which can be mobilised by great causes, and which is governed by values and guided by principles.
I shall conclude by saying that the obvious target of the Commission’s contribution to the debate here is the Convention. The Convention is now entering the critical stage of its work, and so we hope that the proposals that it puts forward, which we would like to be politically realistic and consensual, fulfil their task of enabling the Heads of State and Government who are present at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to take the best decisions on behalf of the Member States and the peoples that they represent. This is, furthermore, our duty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples