Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.2.3-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, I would like to start by expressing my sincere, heartfelt thanks – on behalf of the Italian Government, which I have had the honour of representing throughout the European Convention – to the Chairman, Mr Giscard d’Estaing, and the Convention for their work. The Italian Government and the Italian public, which is deeply pro-European and fully endorses the Chairman’s words and, more generally, the text adopted by the Convention, echoes the applause with which the House received Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s report.
I want to stress in this Chamber that one of the most important innovations is the election of the Commission by the European Parliament, which thus sees its legislative codecision and budgetary powers increased – with the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure ceasing to exist – and which acquires the right to propose a future revision of the Constitution, if necessary, using the Convention method.
Like the others, this innovation is part of an institutional package which, as Mr Giscard d’Estaing said, certainly leaves room for improvement, although it would be extremely dangerous to attempt to modify it to any great extent for fear of upsetting the balance of a complex system based on the dual legitimacy granted by national States and citizens, as achieved in the Convention. That is why the delicate but considerable balance achieved by the Convention will be the basic reference for the Intergovernmental Conference. To preserve this spirit and ensure continuity and consistency with the work carried out by the Convention, I believed and continue to believe it desirable for the representatives of the Commission and the European Parliament to take part in Conference and for the Chairman of the Convention and its Vice-Chairmen, Mr Amato and Mr Dehaene, to take part too.
The European Parliament must continue to play a fundamental part in this stage of the project of constitutional reform. During the July part-session, Mr Berlusconi called for the greatest possible involvement of the institution and I would like to stress the need for this once again.
I would also like to express a hope which I am sure will be realised: that the European Parliament take up its monitoring duties without delay, not just to ensure that the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference are open and transparent, as we are seeking to guarantee, but, first and foremost, to ensure that it reflects the expectations of the citizens and that the governments do not give way to the temptation to destroy the valuable fruit of the Convention’s labour. Indeed, if this major opportunity were to be lost, it would be a negative signal for all the European citizens and we would certainly be doing irreparable damage to the project of European integration.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have certainly come a long way in the over 50 years which have elapsed since the day of what may be considered the birth of the European Union: the Robert Schuman declaration of 9 May 1950 which proposed the joint management of a small number of interests – relating to energy, raw materials and economic affairs – to promote and implement the principles of solidarity and peace.
The project of building a united Europe is currently going through a crucial stage in its history with, on the one hand, reunification with the countries of the east, which are once again fully embracing the principles of freedom and democracy, and, on the other, the transition from an economic dimension to a political dimension, which can only go hand in hand with the building of a European identity which will enable the Union to become an element of stability, prosperity and peace on the world stage. These are the epoch-making challenges facing the Europe, united in diversity, which is evoked in the preamble to the Constitution: a Europe composed of States which are pooling their sovereignty and powers without losing their identities.
It is in a spirit of fidelity to its Europeanist tradition, which is the heritage of the Italian people and of all the political groupings of my country, that the Italian Presidency intends to conduct the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. The first Treaty of Rome launched European unification; the second must – and will – bring about the transition to the new reunified Europe: a Union which is politically and economically stronger, destined to become an element of stability and prosperity on the world stage. We can say with confidence, on the basis of the text of the reform Treaty adopted by the Convention, that we really are just a step away from achieving this historic goal.
This was a genuinely significant moment and one which may justifiably be described as historic. I would like, first of all, to express my deep satisfaction at the fact that the Thessaloniki Council endorsed the draft Constitution adopted by the Convention, describing it as a historic step towards achieving the objectives of European integration and then describing the Treaty as a ‘sound basis’ upon which to open the Intergovernmental Conference which is to take place during the Italian Presidency.
Indeed, the Convention’s task went far beyond the – albeit important – role of adjusting the institutions’ mechanisms and rules. The Laeken mandate was explicit: to rethink the entire European institutional set-up on the eve of the major historic event of the reunification of the old continent once and for all. For the first time in the history of European integration, the task was not entrusted to – albeit esteemed – government officials, but to a genuinely democratic, representative assembly, in other words to a Convention made up of representatives of the national parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission, and representatives both of those countries which have been part of the European Union from the beginning and of those which are about to become full members of our great family.
Now, after 16 months of work, we have achieved a major result which was, in many respects, unhoped for and which I feel is even more significant if we consider the innovative nature of the working method which the Praesidium proposed to the Convention. We have consistently sought to achieve the widest possible consensus, without ever having to resort to the traditional method of a vote. That is why the Intergovernmental Conference’s work, while not without difficulties, will certainly be facilitated by the fact that it is not dealing with several alternatives for a text but, quite the opposite, with a single text which has the broad support of the members of the Convention and has already been endorsed by the European Council.
It is why the Italian Presidency considers that Mr Giscard d’Estaing is right when he states categorically that the further the Intergovernmental Conference moves away from the agreement reached by the Convention, the more difficult it will be to find consensus again and, therefore, the greater the likelihood of failure, and that failure would be a resounding defeat. It would not just be the failure of the Presidency or the Convention: it would be failure to live up to the expectations of those millions upon millions of Europeans who genuinely believe that the time has come to establish not just common rules but common, shared values too.
We are therefore pleased with the end result. We have made that clear publicly before our own citizens, before the Italian parliament, but it is right to state the fact once again in this Chamber. The text was, indeed, a compromise, but a superior, noble compromise between different bodies, perspectives and interests, a compromise based on a number of points which we feel to be essential and which I too want to mention again briefly: the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the text of the Constitution; changing the complex and, in some respects, outdated pillar structure of the current Treaties; clearer distribution of powers between the Union and the Member States with all due regard for national identities and the internal organisation of the respective States, that dual principle to which Mr Giscard d’Estaing referred; the introduction of mechanisms to ensure genuine respect for the principle of subsidiarity and to bring about increasingly extensive involvement of the national parliaments in the work of the Union. The Convention established that there are four institutions: the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission and also the national parliaments, which represent the will of the people.
Furthermore, the classification of legal and financial documents and instruments, with the introduction for the first time of a proper hierarchy of norms; the creation of the office of European Minister for Foreign Affairs – possibly the most innovative institutional figure to have emerged from the Convention’s work, following the merging of the duties performed thus far by the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations. Of equal importance is the potential future merging of the posts of Mr President-in-Office of the Council and Commission President. In addition, qualified majority voting will be further extended to other areas.
A great deal has been achieved. If anyone were to ask whether any more could have been done, I would say yes, more could and should have been done, but the compromise reached may be the only one possible. In a 25- or 27-Member State Union, continuing on the basis of unanimous decision-making would have brought the end of the Union’s ability to govern properly owing to
the complexities of public opinion.
I will end by saying a few words, Mr President, regarding the institutional balance of powers achieved by the Convention: a delicate balance, a balance that has been sought right from day one because it was quite clear to the entire Convention that the power of one institution could not be increased to the detriment of another. It is a balance based on the distribution of powers between the European Council, which takes on the role of a political institution, with the task of laying down the Union’s guidelines and general political priorities, the Commission, representing the Member States, which keeps its central role of guardian of the Treaties and guarantor of the Community interest, and the European Parliament, which becomes a full colegislator."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples