Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-006"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.1.2-006"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the six months that are drawing to a close have been full of events and projects. You will remember that, at the opening sitting on 2 July 2003, I listed 13 legislative proposals that the Commission hoped would go through by the end of the year. I am very happy to note that, thanks to the efforts of the Italian Presidency, agreement has been reached on five important items on that list: I am thinking, in particular, of the amended directive on the traceability of GMOs and the framework agreement with the European Space Agency which will give a great boost to the development of our space policy; the introduction of the Single European Sky and the rules on public procurement are other major achievements of these six months and both will be formally approved early next year; lastly, clear outlines have now emerged on a political agreement on takeover bids, which Parliament will be considering during this part-session.
Sharing the blame is not enough, however, ladies and gentlemen. We will now have to explain to the citizens how best to protect their future. Alone or together? Divided or united? There is only one answer: we just need to open our eyes. In line with the Laeken declaration, I still believe the solution cannot lie in a combination of vetoes but in the convergence of interests and proposals. The right of veto is not an expression of democratic will and our institutions cannot side step the rules of democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are currently seeking a common solution and I realise that this is terribly difficult when there are still so many important issues on which agreement has yet to be reached. Having said that, however, I am convinced that the right solution will be found with time and patience. I therefore hope that future European Councils will come back to the issue of our Constitution with a realistic timetable and also with an overall perspective that we have, perhaps, lost in the course of recent months.
We all need to display courage and imagination, the qualities that major political decisions demand. Only a few days have gone by since the Brussels Summit. It is too early and could even be presumptuous to put forward a full response as yet. However, we clearly have a duty to reflect on what has happened and what we need to do in the future. Some are thinking about a vanguard of pioneering States paving the way for greater cooperation and serving as the foundations for a stronger and more closely integrated Union open to all. Solutions of this kind are part of the tradition of European integration, and if we cast our minds back, we see that such solutions emerge first and foremost when things are at their toughest and most complex. Today, we are at one of those moments of crisis, and we therefore need to be courageous, responsible and forward-looking as we start to reflect on the future.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to close this brief speech with an appeal from the heart. I ask you to bring your political wisdom, your farsightedness and your experience to bear in the service of the first Constitution for a united Europe. I know there are many of us in this House who see the European Union as the only viable answer to the challenges of history and politics. As the directly elected representatives of our fellow citizens, you are very familiar with their views: thus, you know that they are perfectly aware that Europe is not an abstract ideal or a whim but a historical necessity. Just step outside our geographical borders: from a Chinese, Indian or American perspective, the individual countries of our continent grow indistinct and merge; what people see increasingly is Europe as a whole; just cast your mind beyond our own age: in the eyes of history, the integration of the whole continent is the only chance of survival for the individual States.
Only Europe can give us the strength to maintain and develop our cultures and the regional and local traditions we are so proud of. If we do not all stand shoulder to shoulder and defend this Union we have started to build over the last half a century, we will lose our autonomy and our influence in the world. The Union will be the loser, but the biggest losers will be the Member States and our citizens, and we will all inevitably end up on the sidelines of history.
The Italian Presidency has carried the flame responsibly and with a great spirit of cooperation, for which the Commission is grateful. For this and for the strenuous efforts they have made, I want to express my thanks publicly to the political leaders of the government and the whole team, both those working in the various institutions in Italy and the Permanent Representation in Brussels.
The last act of these six months was the Summit of Heads of State or Government that ended in Brussels last Saturday. The part devoted to the Intergovernmental Conference rightly attracted most of the public's attention, but we must not overlook the other important issues on the table that were successfully resolved.
Of course, the topic to which I attach most importance is the European Initiative for Growth, which the Council approved unanimously. This Initiative is the most visible part of a general plan of measures to stimulate the European economy. Indeed, the measures adopted by the Council include measures to enhance our competitiveness and encourage job creation. Ladies and gentlemen, the opportunity offered by the current recovery needs to be grasped now so we can reinvigorate the Lisbon agenda, which remains the key strategy for sustainable growth for the continent as a whole.
Lastly, I welcome the agreement reached in the Council on the seven new European Agencies which will deal with transport safety air, rail and maritime safety - food safety, fisheries, chemicals and disease prevention and control. I want to stress the role played by the Commission over the now four years of work which have led to this achievement. It is all the more satisfying to reach this outcome because the course has been uphill all the way. The task was difficult and called for quiet work behind the scenes, but the Commission never doubted we would succeed in our undertaking. There are two reasons why the agreement on the Agencies is so important. Firstly, it provides a more flexible and more efficient model for Community structures, a model that will bring the Union increasingly close to the European citizens. Secondly, it is the result of a comprehensive approach that reconciles individual countries' interests, which can hold up or impede progress towards the common interest if they are not aligned.
I will now move on to the other major topic of the Brussels Summit: I am sad and disappointed at the failure to adopt a Constitution for the European Union. Let us cast our minds back two years to the Laeken European Council and the reasons behind its historic conclusions. The conclusions were a response to a need felt by all at that time: for the Union to be given a more coherent, better-structured institutional framework. At the time, the Member States were agreed on three basic points. Firstly, the need to improve the functioning of our institutions, following that famous night at Nice. Secondly, the need to rationalise our legislative and institutional structures. Over the decades they have grown so complex that this has diminished the coherence of the Union's policies and procedures. Thirdly, the need to involve the European citizens more in European integration.
The great innovation at Laeken was the Convention, the most ambitious and democratic institutional project in our history. We have invested years of work in the undertaking, bringing together under the same roof 105 delegates from democratic bodies across Europe: national parliaments and governments, representatives of the European Parliament and members of the Commission. The Convention did a good job. After 18 months, it presented a draft Constitution that we concluded was a good basis for the Intergovernmental Conference to work on.
Moreover, as we have stated repeatedly, the text needed just a few amendments on certain points, because we were convinced as we still are that it strikes a delicate balance for the whole system
underpinning the European Union and its work. On the major points, the Convention's work was excellent. I am thinking of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the method of qualified-majority voting and the distribution of political responsibilities. I am also thinking of the increased role of the European Parliament, to which the draft Constitution gives, at last, greater decision-making powers in the area of the Union's budget. As regards other issues, in particular the procedure for amending the Constitution, there was just not enough time. Lastly, on the issue of the drafting of the Constitution, the principle of one Commissioner per Member State was already there in essence. The practical arrangements were not satisfactory, but work carried out after the Intergovernmental Conference sorted this out.
Like every working basis, the Convention's draft was intended to take us forward, but some Member States have used it to take us backwards. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am here expressing my sadness and disappointment to you today. Last week, the European integration project ground to a halt and we all, all of us, missed a great opportunity. The consequences will not be tragic, however, if we can keep resolutely to the course set by the Convention. The problems identified in the Laeken declaration still need resolving; the basic text is still that produced by the Convention. Although there is no sense in pointing the finger and pinning the blame on any particular national delegation, I must stress that we cannot shape our institutions with the possibility of blocking decisions as the only parameter. That is not our role, it is not the role of Parliament or the Commission. The deadlock at Brussels means that the Council as a whole failed to reach consensus on a unified proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples