Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.7.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to present this House with a progress report on the process of constitutional reform of the European Union.
Thirdly, the obviously excessive number of non-institutional matters raised by Member States was clearly incompatible with the time constraints of the IGC schedule established in Thessaloniki and confirmed in Brussels by the Heads of State or Government. Accordingly, the Presidency will examine this set of issues using a selective approach, and identify those areas around which a consensus seems to be forming which is different from the line taken in the Convention’s draft, and the areas which require technical and editorial clarification. It will then be up to Member States to decide whether to insist on specific, minority points, and, if necessary, to bring them to the attention of Heads of State or Government.
On the basis of the Convention’s draft and on the work of the Foreign Ministers, the Presidency will draw up a comprehensive proposal centred on the institutional package and the question of defence. The proposal will attempt to consider the demands of both acceding and candidate states. The point of departure for the proposal, however, will still be the Convention’s draft, and it will seek to achieve compromises that are at least as ambitious and worthy as those put forward by the Convention. We are willing to consider possible adjustments but remain resolutely opposed to undermining and retreat.
In all probability, the future of the European Constitution depends on the outcome of these negotiations. Therefore, and in view of the high stakes, all parties should adopt a flexible approach to the task of laying the foundations for the European Union of the twenty-first century. We must abandon parochial concerns and move away from the idea of getting a fair return, whereby every single concession must be matched by a gain of equal import. This approach is
or rather, would be
contrary to the very concept of European integration, and, if applied systematically, would be in danger of undermining the foundations of the Union. Although fairness is a prerequisite for any constitutional agreement, no one must stop the current process of integration. Those who decide to act in this way will have to be prepared to be judged by history, by their European partners and, above all, by their citizens. The approval of the new Constitution will be a success for everyone or a failure for the Union. There can be no substantial conflict between national and European interests.
The Italian Presidency firmly believes that only with the support of the European Parliament can the numerous problems facing us be resolved, and political agreement be achieved by December. For this reason, in keeping with Italy’s traditional position, we have striven to maximise the participation of the European Parliament in the Intergovernmental Conference.
The Convention on the future of Europe was an innovation that set the current process of treaty reform in motion. The draft Treaty drawn up by the Convention is the result of more than just intergovernmental negotiation. Indeed, it takes its shape from a series of constructive contributions and a structured, global, public, transparent debate on the future of Europe. For the first time in the history of European integration, the process has actively engaged national parliaments and representatives of civil society too. The political value of the success achieved must not, therefore, be dispersed or watered down by the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. For its part, the IGC is responsible for enhancing and supplementing those sections of the Treaty where full agreement has yet to be reached. Any other solution would be seen as an attempt to downgrade the democratic and transparent method that was launched with the European Convention’s work. If this were to happen, it would be a backward step that our citizens would find difficult to understand or justify.
This is the belief underpinning the Italian Presidency’s chief aim, which is to reach global political agreement on the Constitution’s text by December. This will open the way to the signing of the future Constitutional Treaty - a Constitution for Europe as President Giscard d'Estaing has called it - in the period between 1 May 2004, which is the date set for the accession of the 10 new Member States, and the European Parliament elections. The extension of the constitutional debate beyond these dates would cause two serious problems of legitimacy and transparency. On the one hand, the constituent legacy of the Convention would be lost; on the other, the European citizens would find themselves voting in European elections without any idea of the future constitutional shape of the Union.
The Italian Presidency will certainly not allow itself to be steered into negotiating a watered-down compromise that would represent a retreat from the Convention’s proposals just to achieve consensus on controversial issues. Our aim is to achieve a high-quality result in keeping with the expectations of the European public and capable of guaranteeing effective, democratic functioning of the Union well into the future. Endowing the European Union with a Constitution is a challenge not only for some countries or for the Italian Presidency, which has the honour of steering the Council through this particular stage, but for all of us. We owe it to our citizens. If we fail to meet the challenge, the reunified Europe also fails and, with it, the European Union as a force for stability and prosperity in the world. Failure would make losers of us all.
After the opening ceremony on 4 October, the real work of the IGC began. As was only to be expected, by far the most complex issues were those relating to institutional affairs. The principal questions concerned the composition of the Commission, election procedures and the competences of the President of the European Council, the status of the Foreign Affairs Minister and the calculation of qualified majorities. These issues were examined at the IGC meetings which took place in the first half of October. The Ministerial Meeting of 27 October expanded the range of the discussion to include matters not addressed, or addressed only marginally, at previous meetings. In particular, the meeting considered the following themes: the presidency of the Council configurations, the extension of qualified-majority voting, and non-institutional matters, with particular reference to economic and financial provisions.
The debate confirmed that Member States have differing positions and that the proposals in the draft Constitutional Treaty approved by the Convention are essentially well-balanced. It also became apparent that reopening debate on specific aspects of the draft treaty leads only to the reiteration of conflicting positions, and not to the emergence of new consensus.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the outcome of the meeting. Firstly, views are gradually converging regarding the future presidency of council formations, although the matter has to be reviewed in the context of a comprehensive proposal covering all the institutional structures of the future enlarged European Union. The vast majority of the Member States oppose the establishment of a Legislative Council. The Italian Presidency has taken due note of this opposition, but will to do everything in its power to ensure that the Legislative Council is preserved in the Treaty, at least as an option for the future and thus as a possible development of the Council system.
Secondly, it confirms that Member States still have divergent positions in respect of the scope of qualified majority voting. In light of this, the Presidency will consider what tools it should adopt to achieve consensus
particularly in sensitive, crucial areas such as taxation, own resources, cooperation on criminal justice and police cooperation. In any event, the Convention’s draft will remain the main basis on which to build a balanced, ambitious agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples