Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.2.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, I am really extremely moved to be standing here before you to present the Constitution for Europe drawn up by the Convention, over which I have had the exceptional honour of presiding.
What, then, is the outcome of all our work? The draft Constitution that I am presenting to you is the outcome of an intense effort. It was published, as you know, in all the languages of the Union and in the language of every new Member State. This was done in time for all citizens, throughout the Union, to be able to access the text as soon as it was presented at the Thessaloniki European Council.
The members of the Convention have worked long and hard. They have taken part in twenty-six plenary sessions, some of which have lasted two days and they have heard more than 1800 speeches. Every proposal, every amendment, every alternative solution, whether it came from a Convention member, a Member State, the European Commission, civil society or, of course, from the European Parliament has been rigorously examined and pored over with a critical and objective eye. This is why, and I must be frank with you, I do not believe there is a single solution that the Convention is not aware of or that it has not explored.
I believe that our proposal goes as far as it is possible to go, given the political, social and cultural climate in Europe today. Far from being the lowest common denominator, as might have been feared at certain times, I would say that it represents the upper limit of what can be achieved in Europe in 2003. If we seek to go further, as some would like to see, and perhaps I am one of those, there is a danger that, as a result of some people’s rejection of the idea or of other people’s disapproval, we will tear apart a Europe that has only just been united. This is an unacceptable risk that no one has the right to take. And you yourselves, the Members of the European Parliament, have encouraged us to go as far as possible, whilst outlining the limits of what is reasonable and acceptable.
What then are the basic proposals put forward in the Constitution? You have learned of them as our work has progressed and I do not, therefore, need to describe them to you in great detail, which would also cause me to far exceed the time scheduled for the debate. I nevertheless wish to emphasise that barely two years ago many of these proposals still appeared to be inaccessible and beyond reach but today form a solid and coherent whole. I shall now recall these proposals for you.
First of all, a central point, which underpins the entire system: the affirmation of the dual nature of the European Union, a union of European peoples and a union of European States.
Next, the establishment of a single text that replaces all existing Treaties, of which there are four, plus a few others, and the attribution of legal personality to the European Union. When, in spring 2002, I looked into the possibility of Europe having a single text, I studied the previous work, the research that had been carried out in this area, and discovered that those involved had encountered obstacles that appeared to be insurmountable.
Next we have the incorporation into the Constitution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines citizens’ rights. My attention is drawn to Mr Vitorino, who contributed an enormous amount to the discussions on this subject.
Another proposal is the clear, transparent and stable definition of the Union’s competences, and these are three aspects that I wish to reiterate. The definition must be clear so that the citizens can understand these competences and it must be transparent so that these are not open to interpretation by institutions that might have a more opaque way of doing things. As well as defining competences, the Constitution also states that they must be exercised by means of simple procedures, a point to which I will return.
The last proposal is the political guarantee that the principle of subsidiarity will be respected, involving national Parliaments in conjunction with the European Parliament. Mr Méndez de Vigo, a Member of the European Parliament, who is present here today, has played a major role in his capacity as chairman of the working group on this issue, which had been deadlocked since 1990.
Furthermore, the Union is given new means with which to act in three areas in which the citizens believe them to be a priority. First of all justice, because in this field we envisage the construction of an area of security and of justice that will enable us to fight more effectively against major cross-border crime and to achieve the mutual recognition of civil rights between Member States.
As you have just said, Mr President, the Constitution is being presented now because this is the first plenary part-session of the European Parliament following the conclusion of our work. You invited me to come at the beginning of July but I had not yet presented the text of our work to the Council Presidency and because it is the Council Presidency that called for this work to be done, it was, therefore, to the Council that we were bound to submit the text first. This is why I am presenting the text to you in this part-session.
In the field of the Union’s foreign policy, the Convention has met the citizens’ second expectation by proposing the appointment of a European Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will chair the Foreign Affairs Council and work to ensure the development of a much-needed common foreign policy. In the field of common defence, it has met the citizens’ expectations by establishing, amongst other provisions, a European arms agency.
Lastly, the Union’s economic and social governance will be improved, especially but not exclusively, between the countries that have adopted the euro, to ensure the stability and success of our common European currency.
As a result of these provisions, the much-vaunted three pillars that have complicated the management and the perception of the Union’s actions since the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties will disappear from the European landscape. The Constitution will give Europe a single institutional system, and by that I mean just one institutional system that will replace the system of the three pillars.
The institutions that the Constitution proposes are stable, democratic and effective. The European Parliament, the main Union institution featured in the Constitution, becomes the Union’s main legislature and the overseer of budgetary policy. The European Council, which will from now on be distinguished from the Council of Ministers because they share neither the same composition nor the same competences, will provide the necessary impetus for the Union’s development and will set its broad political priorities. This Council will now have a face, with a President elected by his or her peers, who will organise its work and plan for the future. The Council of Ministers will be refocused towards the tasks of the Legislative and General Affairs Councils and the various formations within it will be regrouped.
The European Commission, which is to be structured in a way that confirms its collegiate nature and whose composition is in line with the number of functions it performs, will act as the driving force and the main executive body of the Union. It will express and embody the common European interest. The President of the Commission will be able to appoint non-voting Commissioners in order to ensure, if he or she wishes, that all Member States are kept informed.
Speaking now to you, who have worked so hard on this matter, I wish to reiterate one essential point: the democratic legitimacy of the system proposed in the Constitution. There will no longer be any justification for talking about a ‘democratic deficit’, an expression that has become part of the everyday language of the critics of our political system. Parliament is now given its central place as legislator in the European system. Apart from a few rare exceptions – and we have endeavoured to limit these as much as was politically possible – the entire body of European law or framework law must be voted on by you, otherwise it will be rejected. Parliament’s rights are also extended in budgetary matters. When the Constitution enters into force, the President of the Commission will be elected by you.
Admittedly, the debate on the issue of the possible presentation of candidates was a difficult one and I am unfortunately unable to take it any further. After lengthy deliberations in which both the Convention members, of course, and the political groups participated, we reached a common solution. Candidates will be presented at the proposal of the European Council, but with two new features: firstly, the outcome of the elections to Parliament will be taken into account and, secondly, the necessary consultations will be held. This is, therefore, an open proposal. Most significantly, you will have the right of rejection. If you do not select, by the majority of your Members, the candidate put forward by the European Council, the Council will be obliged to submit another candidate within the space of one month.
At the behest of Giuliano Amato, the Convention has succeeded in undertaking an enormous task of simplifying and classifying European decisions. I recall the discussions held in your Committee on Constitutional Affairs at the time and the proposals by Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges.
In now making a distinction between legislative and executive acts, we are taking a step closer towards the traditional systems in force in the Member States, systems that are familiar and understandable to all citizens. The democratic system imagined by Montesquieu and the thinkers of the enlightenment – I, like many others, have been greatly interested in Montesquieu’s thinking – cannot, contrary to what is sometimes said, be transposed, because Montesquieu’s system was designed to meet the needs of a nation State and what he calls the ‘balance of powers’ is a balance that exists only within such a nation State.
Nevertheless, we have managed to transpose it to some extent, to define a new balance of powers that takes account of the duality that is and will no doubt remain a unique feature of the European Union: the union of peoples and the union of States. We have consequently defined a democratic model on a European scale, which takes account not only of the size of the population – 450 million inhabitants – and of the diversity of the Member States, both old and new, but also of the desire for the European continent to be united. In short, if I may say so respectfully and cautiously, we have created a form of Montesquieu for the Europe of the twenty-first century.
I must tell you that you are fully entitled to have this presentation, because the European Parliament is really the institution behind the Convention and thus the draft Constitution. As long ago as 1984, spurred on brilliantly by Altiero Spinelli, Parliament drew up an initial draft constitution for Europe, at a time when nobody dared talk about it or even think about it. You had the boldness – the calculated boldness – to rename your Committee on Institutional Affairs the ‘Committee on Constitutional Affairs’ at the beginning of the legislature, and I am hoping to catch the eye of its Chairman, Mr Napolitano. He is not yet present but I am sure we will see him soon.
Before entering into force, this Constitution still faces two sizeable obstacles to overcome: its approval by governments and its ratification by the democratic expression of Europe’s peoples, in the form of Parliaments or referendums.
I should like to say a few words about the role that you will have to play in this process. Before doing so, however, I wish to remove any ambiguity about the future role of the Convention.
The Convention has achieved what it set out to do. On 20 June 2003, in the Convention’s name, I sent the first two parts of the Constitution that had been drawn up by the Convention to the Greek Presidency. When in Rome, on 18 July, I handed over to the Italian Presidency the by then completed text of the draft constitutional treaty, I added – I shall quote this short passage in full, for Parliament’s records – that the Convention has executed the mandate conferred on it by the Laeken European Council and has completed it. In presenting the draft treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the President of the Convention believes he has fulfilled his duty and consequently his work is at an end. This means that the Convention no longer has a role and that it is no longer able to intervene in the process of the Intergovernmental Conference, because it would have no mandate to do so.
On the other hand, the Convention members, not least the President of this Parliament, the vice-presidents and myself, will remain available to anyone, and that includes those within this hemicycle, who wishes to ask us about the arguments that have led us to put forward any particular proposal contained in the Constitution. The Intergovernmental Conference will open in precisely one month, under the Italian Presidency, a representative of which will perhaps say something about this a little later. Most of the Convention members, before going their separate ways, expressed the desire that the conference will be brief and can be concluded by the end of the year.
The Thessaloniki European Council decided that the conference would take our draft Constitution as its starting point. Three solutions are then possible. Either the Intergovernmental Conference will improve the draft Constitution although it is hard to imagine how it could achieve this
…and I say this not out of the collective vanity of the text’s authors, but because this Conference will come up against two obstacles that the Convention did not have to face: shortness of time and the rule of unanimity. How, in fact, could a draft that took us sixteen months of continual work to draw up be improved on in two and a half months? Furthermore, how can unanimity provide more thorough solutions than those on which we struggled to reach consensus? Let us be good sportsmen, however! If the Intergovernmental Conference succeeds in improving the Constitution, the Convention Members will be the first to applaud its success.
The second possibility is that the Intergovernmental Conference will end up submitting proposals that are less worthy than those put forward by the Convention.
This could have serious consequences. The reservations or criticism expressed in various quarters about our proposals, in particular those concerning institutional matters, suggest a very real risk. We cannot alter one part of the building without risking bringing down the entire construction. Those who think they can make substantial changes to our institutional proposals are, I believe, mistaken. By probably satisfying a few people, they run the risk of dissatisfying and disappointing everyone else.
Shortly after the disappointing results in the Treaty of Nice concerning institutional matters, you called loud and strong for a Convention to be formed. At the instigation of the Belgian Prime Minister, the Laeken European Council of December 2001 backed your call.
The third solution, which appears to be the most suitable one, consists of approving the draft Constitution.
(
If the draft Constitution produced by the Convention is to be approved, however, we would equally have to accept, of course, and I address my words now to the Presidency representatives, that some unanimously accepted amendments will need to be made to it. I wish to ask you, without dwelling too much on the matter, to consider the gravity of the consequences of failure. Because of the time of year, the location, the sunshine and the pleasure I am taking in being here with you, a degree of optimism appears to permeate this meeting. I ask you nevertheless to consider the consequences and the seriousness of failure, the disappointment and the frustration that this would create amongst the entire European public.
Lastly, let us not forget that after the Intergovernmental Conference, we will face the real ordeal by fire: the draft’s ratification in each Member State, in each of the twenty-five Member States. This ratification is by no means a foregone conclusion. My personal conviction is that, after making an intense effort to provide explanations and to persuade people, if the draft Constitution as drawn up by the Convention is submitted to ratification by the people, in the form of referendums in some countries and of parliamentary approval in others, it will ultimately be approved everywhere. If, on the other hand, what is submitted is a mutilated or truncated draft Constitution, I fear that it will be rejected in one or more Member States. Indeed, if the draft is forced to undergo cuts in this way, it would lose two of the crucial arguments used to support and defend it: coherence and balance, which have come together in the draft Constitution. We would, therefore, be unleashing a crisis that Europe really does not need in the current climate, and this is a crisis to which it is hard to imagine a solution.
Mr President, the European Parliament has a crucial role to play throughout this process and I would ask you to be active and vigilant. Indeed, it is your duty to ensure that the general public is well informed. What is needed is not a traditional-style Intergovernmental Conference and by that I mean a diplomatic one, where what is being debated between politicians, experts or diplomats are the mutual advantages that some attempt to achieve at the expense of others. No, this will be a constitutional Intergovernmental Conference of a type never seen before, which must result in the creation of a Constitution. It must, therefore, adhere to specific rules. Observers from your Parliament will take part in this conference, and they must alert the public and demand transparency!
At the last sitting of the Convention that you attended, Mr President-in-Office of the Council and members of the Convention, I suggested that the Intergovernmental Conference should take its inspiration from our working method, which was actually imposed on us, by making it mandatory to make public, if necessary on the Internet, any proposal to change the Constitution and any amendment to it.
This will give the general public and the media a precise idea of the content of the debates. Similarly, I feel it would be legitimate for you to be informed at each of your plenary part-sessions of the state of the Conference’s work, as I informed the European Council on behalf of the Convention.
You will, therefore, deliver an opinion on this Intergovernmental Conference and you will do so before the conference opens in Rome. It is you, of course, who have the crucial responsibility of drafting this opinion and of adopting it, but it could, I believe, serve as a warning. If the scope of the constitutional treaty, which has been drawn up with the utmost transparency by the Convention and with your considerable contribution, is substantially diminished by the Intergovernmental Conference and is consequently rejected by the European Parliament, it will have little chance of being ratified by the States and by the peoples of Europe.
If, on the other hand, the Union’s governments adopt at the Conference a constitutional treaty that closely resembles the draft Convention – we do not expect it to be exactly the one we have drawn up – and if this receives the approval of the European Parliament, it will occupy a central position in the great political debate that will take place in the European elections of June 2004. This will provide an opportunity for appealing to all players on our continent, for garnering the interest of civil society and for helping the ‘don’t knows’ to make up their minds. These are the people who have lost confidence in the Union’s ability to unite and to renew itself.
When we addressed the substance of the matter, your preparatory work in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as I said, under the chairmanship of Mr Napolitano, made our task considerably easier, as did your reports, which sometimes preceded and sometimes accompanied our debates, such as the report by Mr Alain Lamassoure on the key issue of competences in the European Union. I wish to emphasise the outstanding and willing participation of all your representatives in the work of the Convention, as well as the pivotal role played by Mr Klaus Hänsch and Mr Iñigo Méndez de Vigo – I believe that working together with them for eighteen months gives me the right to call them by their first names – in the deliberations of the Convention’s Praesidium.
The main debate in the European elections will consequently echo the more modest work of our Convention, by helping to bring Europeans closer to the Union, to better understand it so that they can ultimately recognise themselves in it. Ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, at the very end of our work, we added into the Constitution, at the request of your representatives, a number of symbols and, in particular, a slogan for the European Union, which is ‘united in its diversity’. I urge you, I beg you to help Europe to provide itself with a Constitution that will enable it to remain free, peaceful and content through being united in its diversity.
Lastly, Mr President, I am not forgetting that you have given the European Convention a home on your premises. I also visited you in July to thank you for your generous hospitality. As for the benches in your hemicycle, they ended up not knowing whether they were members of Parliament or of the Convention!
This presentation is, therefore, an emotional occasion, but also a realistic one, because I stand here before you both in order to present and assess what we have accomplished, and also to reiterate what remains to be done to ensure that Europe gains a real Constitution.
In attempting to assess any type of situation, one tends to forget what the starting point was. Two years ago, the very word ‘Constitution’ was still taboo, to the extent that the Laeken declaration only alluded to it indirectly. Today, the idea of a Constitution for Europe has entered the consciousness of the European: Europe’s citizens are now ready for the Constitution. According to the latest Eurobarometer survey, drawn up by the Commission, Mr President, and conducted in June and July throughout the European Union, 70% say that they are in favour of a Constitution and only 13% are not in favour. In Italy, which is the current holder of the Council Presidency and which consequently has a major responsibility for the success of the Intergovernmental Conference – I must take this opportunity to welcome the Vice-President of the Council, who is a member of the Convention and the Minister of Foreign Affairs – 82% approve of the idea of a Constitution. Even in the traditionally more cautious countries, there is greater approval than disagreement. I shall give the example of Finland, whose representatives have played a very active role in the Convention: 53% of the public is in favour and 37% against.
Our joint endeavours to explain the content of the Constitution have also enabled us to make progress in increasing European citizens’ understanding of our project. It must be acknowledged that we have come quite a long way, from a time when there was little recognition of our work and little understanding, whereas a survey conducted by the Commission at the end of June, in other words two months ago, suggests that 70% of the public who do hold an opinion about our work consider it to be positive. And to you who represent them, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, I have one request to make: never forget the citizens. One hears many opinions expressed; by leaders, decision makers, by those in government, but you must never forget the citizens: it is for them that we are working, after all! During the Convention’s deliberations, when I was sitting in your place – only temporarily, Mr President – I thought continually about the man or woman in the European street, and have attempted to imagine their reactions to our proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples