Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.7.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking all the Members who have spoken for their valuable contribution to the process of drawing up the new Constitutional Treaty.
It is quite clear that we who, as the Presidency in office, are presiding over the work of the Intergovernmental Conference can only be helped in our task by these contributions, however critical. However, I would like to attempt to reassure you over what may appear to be a deadlock, to be problems between the IGC and the European Parliament. I am not trying to say that there are no problems – I highlighted some in my introductory speech - but we also have to realise that, in this phase of debate in the IGC, the countries are, of necessity, trying to stick to certain positions in the negotiations, not least for strategic reasons.
Quite frankly, I believe that each one of us, and we have some small experience of negotiations, knows that this bargaining, typical of negotiations, means that positions can often appear to be far apart right up to the last moment. I am sure that even the esteemed Members of the European Parliament who are attending the IGC can confirm that everyone has expressed the intention in the IGC at least to succeed in finding a solution which observes the time frames laid down by the Thessaloniki European Council, allowing the new Constitutional Treaty to be signed before the forthcoming European Parliament elections, and they all want it genuinely not to be a watered-down solution. In this sense, I can confirm the Italian Presidency’s commitment to ensuring that situations do not actually develop which could ultimately lead to an unsatisfactory result. Moreover, in the democratic process which, although questionable – in the sense that many have called it into question – will be subject to scrutiny in that, as we all know, the end product of the Intergovernmental Conference will be assessed by the national parliaments, the European Parliament and, in some cases, even by the citizens in referendums, that will be the real, definitive assessment of the work of the IGC.
Therefore, to predict failure at this stage, saying that no progress is being made and that things are essentially at a standstill, would be both inaccurate and, quite frankly, unhelpful. It would be inaccurate for the reasons I have just given: these are times of strategic manoeuvres which must be seen as such and could not, I feel, be seen any differently, for the simple reason that the idea is not to resolve one point at a time – for then we would be able to say at each stage: ‘This has been discussed and resolved’ – the idea is to realise that, when such a complex undertaking is embarked upon, we can only look at the overall picture, and therefore, at the end of the proceedings, we will be able to balance out the proposal we are going to make as Presidents-in-Office, which we hope will be accepted as widely as possible and to the greatest possible extent.
I would still, very briefly, like to focus on a number of points, those which have received most attention, for I do not have time to respond to everyone, of course. As regards the Legislative Council, which was one of the issues most frequently raised by the speakers, as Presidents-in-Office, at the request of the European Parliament, with the commitment given by Mr Frattini, as Mr Napolitano pointed out, at the hearing of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, we brought it to the attention of the initial meeting in Rome on 4 October, and then proposed it again at the last IGC meeting of Foreign Ministers despite the fact that we had identified clear, widespread political opposition. We were not rewarded by success, but we have kept the debate open on this matter, considering that the work of the Convention, on the one hand, and the demands of the European Parliament, on the other, are sufficient for the issue to be given a place in the final proposal. It is a commitment which Mr Frattini made at the very end of the proceedings of the last Intergovernmental Conference meeting.
As regards the procedures for revising the Constitutional Treaty – a point which was not addressed by the Convention – those taking part in the IGC are quite aware that the Italian Presidency has proposed to open a debate on this issue too, that, in this case too, there are times when conducting the work is a difficult task, as regards both form – because the item was not originally on the agenda – and content, for an in-depth analysis has been launched which is of no mean importance: it opens a debate on whether what we are working on is genuinely a Constitution. Some countries have started to say that, if it is a Constitution, then that is a completely different question and that they have never given anyone a mandate to discuss a Constitution. You understand, therefore, that all this is not exactly the simplest of processes to manage, but Mr Frattini, who is presiding over the work of the IGC, has kept the debate on this issue open too, saying that he hopes there can be a reflection on the matter across the board in an attempt to understand that the more effective the process we use to find a solution, the easier it will be to amend the agreements signed when the time comes. We have undertaken to return to this matter too.
Lastly, as regards the matter you have said may be a priority, which is certainly extremely important, the Ecofin contribution, I can only reiterate what Mr Frattini said, to the effect that the Italian Presidency does not accept any kind of proposal made by any Council configuration, not even Ecofin.
It does not accept such proposals because they are unacceptable in substance, and I therefore support all the Members who have agreed that they are unacceptable on the basis that we have fully espoused this principle. In this regard, of course, if, as happened in the context of the Convention’s proceedings, someone proposes points which are also mentioned in the press as having been discussed by Ecofin, we are under obligation to address them and discuss them. However, I can assure you that, as far as the Italian Presidency is concerned, it is our express intention to safeguard the rights of parliaments, and not just the European Parliament but parliaments in general. We are talking about the new Constitution or Constitutional Treaty – call it what you will but that is the spirit in which we are presiding over the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference – and it is quite clear that, if the part played by the European Parliament and the national parliaments is lacking or even just diminished, not only would we be doing a disservice to the future Constitutional Treaty but we would also be doing a disservice to the citizens of Europe. Therefore, on this, I feel I can commit the Italian Presidency to endeavouring to safeguard rights which we believe must be upheld at all costs, while taking into account the wishes of others at the same time."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples