Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.4.3-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our commitment to Europe has as its goal an active, democratic and transparent European Union, one that is founded on values, principles and rules. This proposal for a European constitution sees us taking a decisive step closer to that goal, and it is a great joy to be able to welcome President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former member of our group, to this House as President of the Convention. I do not want to repeat what the Liberals have had to say on the subject. President Giscard, I have a clear recollection of how, in January 1992, when Egon Klepsch, the chairman of our group, was elected President of the European Parliament, I stood behind you as we together – you first, with me following modestly behind – cast our votes for Leo Tindemans as group chairman. If, back in 1992, somebody had said that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing would, in September 2003, put before the European Parliament a constitutional treaty, a constitution for Europe, I would have said that was wonderful, that it was a dream, a vision! That this dream has become reality is something in which we can rejoice with all our hearts.
To you, President Giscard d’Estaing, I want to address a special word of gratitude and appreciation. I might add that I have never doubted that the outcome would be a good one, for you met in our group’s chamber, although I will readily concede that it was once home to another group. I would also like to express warm thanks to our members of the Praesidium, Mr Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Mr Klaus Hänsch, and, representing all our Members in the Convention, their chairman, Mr Elmar Brok, and our colleagues in the Convention. You will all have the opportunity to take the floor at our second September sitting, when we will be discussing the reports by Mr Gil-Robles and Mr Tsatsos. The Convention’s methodology has turned out to be the right one, as, post-Nice, we had said in the presence of the President of the European Council that we needed another methodology, and our group has always put the case for a Convention. It is no secret that, within our group, which is a large one, the PPE component has priorities that differ from those of the DE element, which is made up of our British friends, but what I can say, on behalf of our group as a whole, is that it is the allocation of competences within Europe that is vital. Our goal is an active Europe, not a centralist Europe. Where common action by Europeans is called for, Europe must be able to act. Not everything that calls for action in Europe calls for action by Europe, but, where Europe is required to act, Europe must be strong. We are now defining what the areas for European action are. It is now for the nation states to say where they have to act, what are the regions’ areas for action, and where action has to be by the municipalities. It is very much to be welcomed that this constitutional treaty guarantees the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the right of appeal for all national parliaments, and that there is an elaborate network of balances interconnecting the different levels of the European Union. We especially welcome the way in which a place has also been found in the constitution for local self-government.
I do not know the exact percentage, but Parliament will have equal rights of codecision on over 90% of legislation, and transparency is at last introduced into the Council of Ministers, which must no longer legislate behind closed doors. It is on the basis of the elections to the European Parliament that the President of the Commission must be nominated. Even now, I call upon the Heads of State or Government to take into account the results of the 2004 European parliamentary elections – no matter what the result; my concern is with the principle – when nominating the President of the Commission, even if the constitution is not yet in force by the time the elections are held.
We have, as a group, seen it as very important that the Foreign Minister, too, should be subject to approval by vote of the European Parliament. We have not, of course, got everything we wanted, nor could we have done. We would have liked the constitution to incorporate a reference to our Judaeo-Christian heritage. We would have liked decisions in foreign and security policy to be based on the principle of majority voting, and we are well aware of the difficulties involved in working out the votes in the Council. I believe that most of us will agree with me when I warn, in the strongest terms, against now undoing this elaborate compromise. Mr Fini, Mr Frattini, we want the European Parliament to have representatives – I am deliberately avoiding the term ‘observers’ – at the Intergovernmental Conference, who will have every facility afforded them to play their part in its work. That is what I have to ask of you.
Let me conclude by saying that the project on the table before us is a great one. At this Intergovernmental Conference, great responsibilities will rest upon your shoulders. There are vast opportunities involved, but also immense dangers, and, on behalf of all of us, I wish you every success, for what this is about is our having, in the twenty-first century, a legal basis on which to peacefully resolve the differences and conflicts of interest that we in Europe have, so that peace may be secured by law, and I wish you great success at the Intergovernmental Conference!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples