Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.1.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, history means development. That is why, with the work of the Convention, the constitutional history of the European Union has started to unroll.
In the draft which we are submitting to you, my distinguished and respected colleague, Mr Gil-Robles, and I propose that the European Parliament take the following three positions:
First position: Parliament claims recognition of the institution of the Convention as its victory and as
. The preparation of the revision of the Treaties is the work of a political body for the first time in history of the European Union.
Second position: despite the imperfections and shortcomings in the Convention's draft, the European Parliament, as Mr Gil-Robles stressed, is calling for the Intergovernmental Conference not to reopen the package of basic compromises reached in it. If, on the contrary, the Intergovernmental Conference distances itself politically from the draft, it will damage our institutional victory and the result of the revision will not, I fear, differ from the Nice fiasco. Of course, there are also reasons relating to the content of the draft that impose respect for the compromise reached. For example, fundamental rights, safeguarding the basic values of the European Union, the social state, culminating in the objective of full employment, the upgrading of the European Parliament, the constitutionalisation and simplification of the content of the Treaties, the increased safeguarding of transparency, making full use of the national parliaments, the extension of qualified majority voting and much more besides.
Third position: the Convention's draft constitution also has serious weaknesses, as my respected friend, Mr Gil-Robles, emphasised. For example: first, the institution of the President of the European Council does not leave the balance between the institutions or the functioning of the European Commission or the parity between the states untouched. It is an institution with a democratic deficit and the corresponding abolition of the revolving presidency damages the parity between the states. Secondly, the constitution of the Commission with 25 commissioners divided, to put it one way, into full and second-class commissioners, is – if you will pardon the expression – a monster in the making. The attempt to extort a ‘yes’ to the introduction of the institution of the President of the European Council by offering more, albeit second-class, commissioners is clear here. Thirdly, it proved impossible to take substantial steps on a foreign policy and security policy which would allow the European Union to restore its political credibility internationally.
So, ladies and gentlemen, both ‘yes’ and criticism? Perhaps that is a contradiction? I believe it is not a contradiction for three reasons. First reason: constitutional texts are not static. They are based on concepts such as freedom, democracy, fundamental rights, equality, the rule of law, the social state, in other words concepts, the content of which undergoes permanent historic development through political and social struggle. Our criticism should be seen as a contribution to this development. Second reason: the European Parliament, should these compromises be reopened, must have submitted its views. Third reason: we are not calling on the European citizens to support the constitutional text because they will be ignorant of its drawbacks, but in knowledge of its drawbacks and for reasons of its advantages.
Two amendments have been proposed in a bid to expressly emphasise the Christian character of the historic roots of the European Union. By its very nature, this is an historic, philosophic and moral issue with a metaphysical basis which therefore concerns each and every one of us. That is why, to finish, I dare to take a personal stand: I recognise the determining role of Christianity in shaping European civilisation, I recognise the need to safeguard the validity of its teachings; however, it would diminish Christianity and underestimate its persuasiveness if we were to accept that it needs constitutional support. That is why I am voting against urging that the Intergovernmental Conference safeguard it constitutionally.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish the Constitution a long, safe journey. I wish it luck in times of storm. I believe that its first port of call should be to restore its political credibility, the political credibility of the European Union. That is what was so badly damaged by the alliance between certain of its members and the United States, who must bear the burden of the illegal invasion of Iraq on the pretext of terrorism.
Finally, I warmly thank my respected rapporteur and chairman, Mr Gil-Robles, the committee's excellent secretariat and all those who cooperated with us."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples