Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.1.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, by way of assessment of your work at the helm of the European Council, all we need to do now is say that the Union is not stronger or more united than it was six months ago, that your government’s contribution to increasing the cohesion lost during the battle over Iraq has been insignificant and that your statements on Chechnya, your failure to produce an initiative on the death penalty and the support and lack of criticism you showed for the Bush and Sharon governments have reduced the already poor credibility of the Union as a player on the world stage. Or else we could point out the disinterested involvement of Mr Tremonti in Ecofin’s attempt to undo the agreements reached by the Convention on the budget, or, again, the outrageous behaviour of Mr Lunardi, who is pushing for European funding for trans-European networks which his company would then like to build.
Your Presidency, however, will be remembered, above all, by Europeans for the failure to achieve agreement on the Convention’s text. This will be the case even if you, with the help of your television networks, succeed in convincing the Italians that success was achieved because you have managed to win the seat of the Food Safety Agency for Parma and to produce an agreement – as yet still on the drawing board – for the funding of a couple of tunnels and a useless bridge.
Of course, it really would not be fair of me to say that the reason for this failure lies entirely in lax preparation or in the original approach of bilateral meetings which provided for no plenary discussion and prevented everyone from forming a clear idea of what the mysterious compromise proposals were or of who was for or against what. However, we do believe that the agreement that was taking shape would – we are sure of it – have created more problems than the current crisis.
I will tell you something else: I do not believe that we can genuinely say today that there is a consolidated agreement on the majority of the 82 points put forward by the Italian Presidency, points which, moreover, are largely unacceptable because they represent a step backwards, and not just with regard to the Convention but with regard to Nice too. Whether you like it or not, the only text on the table is that adopted by the Convention.
Your weak Presidency and the Spanish and Polish Governments are not the only ones to blame for this crisis. There are many others, starting with those who rejected double majority voting at Nice and are now setting themselves up as unlikely European political heroes.
Therefore, we accept the challenge posed by the crisis: it might lead to a better Constitution for the future. However, we need to take note of the fact that the governments of both old and new Member States of the Union are unable to reach unanimous consensus on a viable Constitution for Europe. It is useless: you will not be able to do it on your own! The Irish Presidency will not succeed where Italy has failed. In order to succeed in giving Europe a Constitution, you need us, your citizens, your parliaments, if you want to prevent the project for a united, enlarged Europe breaking down soon in disastrous disputes over the Financial Perspective or over national sovereignty.
The Constitution is not dead; the governments are not the masters of Europe, not least because when they attempt to be they lose their way in domestic wrangles. We must resume the initiative without delay and prevent the work carried out by the Convention being filed away in some dusty drawer forever with the excuse that we need time to think or to fulfil our electoral obligations. To this end, we need to find allies both in the national parliaments and among those governments which, like us, can see the urgent need to overcome the crisis quickly, restoring confidence in the European project and restoring its credibility and also asserting the need to abolish the right of veto for institutional reforms.
I regret, Mr Berlusconi, that it is not clear whether or not Italy is one of these. I hope you will tell me that it is. Beware, however: we are not yet resigned to the idea that, with the European Union only just reunited, it should already be divided or that the time has come to set its rate of progress on the basis of the interests of a small élite: we do not believe there should be two different groups or factions. Our aim must continue to be the reinvigoration of the project for a democratic, effective Europe with which all can identify.
It may be true that an agreement was not far off in Brussels. If that is so, we call upon the Irish Presidency to convene another Convention without delay to ascertain in the clear light of day whether it is still possible to reach agreement. Otherwise, the plan must be to relaunch the constituent process after the European elections."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples