Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.7.3-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, in this debate entitled ‘progress report’ on the Intergovernmental Conference – with the emphasis on the word ‘progress’ – I have to say, quite frankly, that the Commission is concerned. On 24 September 2003, I expressed the hope before this House that the Conference would bring progress, that it would be able to adjust and enhance some points, clarify others and evaluate the draft Constitution on which we have all worked – and worked well, I feel – in the context of the Convention.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to reiterate here, on behalf of the Commission, that the only way we will have any chance of a short, decisive Intergovernmental Conference is if the governments observe the broad balance of the Constitution drawn up by the Convention. As for the rest, we expect the national governments to shoulder their responsibilities: the responsibility to resolve without delay, as you said, Minister, a small number of issues which have been debated at length; the responsibility to build in the flexibility and safeguards which will allow the Constitution to move with the times. We have reached the point where all the cards are on the table. Now we need to have a discussion and take a decision, which is different from aligning national positions. As far as the Commission is concerned, it is ready to do that, under the same conditions as I outlined a month ago: to enhance the draft Constitution with regard to a limited number of points, without jeopardising its overall balance; to make all the provisions clearer in order to avoid misunderstandings or confusion when the text is ratified; to carry out what I would call the legal fine-tuning exercise entrusted to it by the Convention.
Ladies and gentlemen, I feel that the credibility of this Intergovernmental Conference method is on the line for the last time. I say this because I have already taken part in three Intergovernmental Conferences since Amsterdam. Each year, the method proves less capable of taking the Union forward. The Maastricht Conference revealed a shared goal. The Amsterdam Conference produced a useful but incomplete result. After laborious negotiations, the Nice Conference managed, in the end, to reach a complex temporary compromise on the leftovers of Amsterdam. Then here we are today with the danger of a deadlock in this Intergovernmental Conference, despite the fact that the Convention is well on the way to a major, high-quality achievement.
Ladies and gentlemen, when the draft Constitution was adopted, some people waxed lyrical on the subject of what they called the ‘spirit of the Convention’. In actual fact, for those who took part in the Convention and continue to be proud of having done so – including many of you – the spirit presiding over the work was, quite simply, European rather than international. All I want at this juncture is to see some of this European spirit hovering once again over the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. Speaking of a conquered people, Cicero said
’. Literally, that means, ‘They acted wisely but too late’. There will, and would be, absolutely no point in the governments of a finally reunified Europe acting wisely after this Intergovernmental Conference is over.
I want to tell you that the evaluation process is making headway under the guidance of Mr Jean-Claude Piris in the Council, with the participation of Parliament’s and the Commission’s legal services.
On the political side of things, quite frankly, the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference have not, however, to date brought any progress at all. On the contrary, today, my impression, the impression of my friend and colleague, Mr Vitorino, and, doubtless, the impression of your own representatives, Mr Hänsch and Mr Mendez de Vigo, is that this Intergovernmental Conference could lead to climbdowns.
Ladies and gentlemen, henceforth, we must put a stop to the excuses some countries are already starting to produce. There is no question mark over the method: it was necessary to give the national governments the time to debate the outcome of the Convention together. After that, the time comes for them to decide.
There is no suggestion that the Italian Presidency is to blame. I can witness to the fact that it has unceasingly and tirelessly endeavoured to generate debate and encourage convergence. It has consistently and firmly taken the result of the Convention as a basis. Mr
Antonione made a point just now relating to the Legislative Council, on which we have noticed a general climbdown. On this point, you have all, like me, heard the proof of what I said about the Italian Presidency - its determination to preserve the outcome of the Convention, to enhance it and to prevent it falling apart, as far as is humanly possible. I would, therefore, like to pay tribute, in particular, to the presidency of the Council of Ministers, in the person of Mr Frattini, and its dedicated efforts.
There is no question mark over the Convention’s work. As we know, not only has it been useful but it is also fully usable. The Convention has discharged its mandate and even gone beyond it, providing the Heads of Government with a complete, coherent text on the table.
Lastly, there is no question mark over the roles played by the Commission and Parliament. In the Intergovernmental Conference today, as in the Convention yesterday, we are working together and, very often, more often than not, there is agreement. In any case, there has always been genuine dialogue between us.
I will be frank, then: what is to be called into question in the current situation of stasis in the Intergovernmental Conference is the approach of certain governments which want to act as if there had been no 18-month long Convention, which want to reopen all the Pandora’s boxes, one after the other, which refuse now to agree to what they often endorsed, themselves, yesterday in the Convention, as regards economic governance, for example, or as regards the role of the European Parliament in the Union’s budgetary procedure. If this approach were to continue, it would lead to a deadlock. I will give you just two examples.
Firstly, qualified majority voting. All the cards are on the table. All the positions are known. We all know that if the unanimity requirement is preserved for a subject, we are, without a doubt, all condemned to collective impotence. There is only one solution to this situation given that there are so many of us round the table – there will soon be 25 of us and, one day, 30 – and that is a shift to qualified majority voting for the majority of subjects. We have to decide here and now and certainly not – on no account – go back on the not inconsiderable progress made with the Convention’s text. The second example is the updating of the common policies in the third part of the Constitution. It is inconceivable that we should manage to produce a perfect, definitive text that will never need to be changed in a few more weeks of Intergovernmental Conference. The important thing – for times are going to change, for European and world society are going to change – is the ability to adapt these policies to the Union’s needs, to the needs of society as they change. The important thing, therefore, is to make the mechanism for revising the third part rather more flexible, at least in some areas."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"‘sero sapiunt"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples