Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.1.2-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank you and all the Members who have spoken in the debate. You have, in general, shown your disappointment with the fact that, in the sixty days available to the Presidency of the Intergovernmental Conference, no concrete result has been forthcoming. In truth, everyone had said such a result would be a miracle and it has been clear for some weeks now that it was not going to be possible to achieve one.
It was not possible to reach agreement on these proposals, which are not either watered-down compromises or otherwise but are aimed exclusively at providing Europe with a new Constitutional Treaty straight away. Thus all participants have chosen to postpone making a decision. This is, therefore, not the conclusion of a debate but the continuation of a search for an agreement that I am sure will soon be reached – I hope under the Irish Presidency or the subsequent Dutch Presidency. Therefore, the Constitution project has not failed.
I would like to conclude, Mr President, with a word of optimism. The desire of all our governments to achieve a constitutional treaty for Europe was strong and everyone felt responsible for the failure to reach a decision. Unfortunately we did not succeed, but I believe that if we could not do it, with all the patience and determination with which we pursued these decisions to the last, nobody else could have done it either. Everyone has granted me that. Nevertheless, we believe that a solution on the majority vote to replace more than 50 years of unanimous voting can still be found, and the desire to find one is unanimous.
This is not a simple problem since, with the majority vote, Member States clearly give up their sovereignty on many matters, and that means it will be a very difficult birth. This birth will have to have the support of the various national parliaments and will probably also have to be put to a referendum in the various countries. I believe, however, that there is a unanimous desire to move in this direction. The Intergovernmental Conference’s sixty days of work were fruitful. The results, as I have said, are there and there is also the political commitment of the Council members to consider these results valid and they should no longer be open to discussion. Then there is the work to be done on the new majority voting method, and I am convinced that, in the end, Europe will be endowed with institutions and working methods that will allow it to play an important role for the well-being, peace, freedom and democracy of its citizens and the citizens of the world.
I believe, however, that this disappointment should not lead us to adopt a pessimistic attitude towards the future. I believe that recriminations serve no purpose and that it is always necessary to be optimistic. I have never known a pessimist to achieve concrete results; only optimism, faith and willpower can lead to positive results. I also believe that Europe should not be divided into a first-class and a second-class Europe, which would be profoundly wrong and would only dampen that enthusiasm, passion and desire for Europe and for common action that I have witnessed over these months of close contact with the government leaders, and not only the leaders, of the ten countries preparing to become members of the European Union. They represent a large number of Europeans – a young, highly educated force – and a major market for us. I believe, therefore, that we should do everything we can to ensure that the old Europe is reinvigorated by the contribution of this new Europe, which, I repeat, is enthusiastically about to join us.
The considerable achievements of the Convention and of all the countries during these six months must be enhanced and maintained: let us not forget that the Intergovernmental Conference began on 5 October and went on until 13 December. I wish, in this respect, to reassure everyone who has spoken about what remains from the work of the Convention – work that we have always sought to praise and to improve upon – and the work of the Conference. Clearly the final decisions of the Conference that I inserted in the concluding statement approved unanimously by all members have not been examined carefully. I would like, therefore, to read you a paragraph, which might perhaps seem pointless, but I feel I must underscore it: ‘The Italian Presidency has conducted the Intergovernmental Conference with the intention of keeping as close as possible to the Convention’s draft, fruit of an in-depth, democratic debate, open also to examining in a constructive spirit the proposals of each Member State in order to consider legitimate needs’.
A second point: this hard work has led to the definition of a text on which the great majority of Member States have agreed and which will, from this point on, be considered an indisputable
thus completing a significant step forward along the road to closer integration of the countries and citizens of the enlarged Union. This means that the States making up the Council have unanimously adopted a political commitment not to reopen those points – practically all of them – on which agreement did not exist previously. In response to Members’ questions, I would also like to point out that these points are all contained in the proposal presented by the Italian Presidency after the Naples Summit; this proposal is available on the Italian Presidency website along with the text of the European defence agreement reached in Brussels on the first day of the new meeting.
This is something specific, and on this basis work must now begin towards an agreement on majority decision-making, which is the fulcrum of the agreement to be reached, in order to have a Europe capable of making not only correct but also prompt decisions, in particular on the adoption of international positions.
Only in this way will we not only have a Europe capable of being a world leader alongside the other major powers, and of being a decisive factor in the development of commerce and increased well-being – as we have been committed to doing, and not least in the Millennium Declaration – but a Europe that can also be decisive in spreading democracy and exporting freedom all over the world; a Europe that, together with the other countries of the West, is committed to providing those in need with food, water, health and education. These are all assets that cannot be guaranteed if the primary asset giving rise to all the others is not guaranteed: this is the asset of freedom, which can only be guaranteed and maintained through democratic forms of government.
I believe that this is the West’s duty and hence Europe’s duty, and I believe that Europe will be able to achieve this result only if it can endow itself with a decision-making method that is not based on unanimity: as we saw just two days ago in Brussels, you only need one country to oppose a decision for it not to be made.
I will respond to just one of the objections that have been raised: the fact that the Italian Presidency did not have formulas for a watered down compromise on the aforementioned majority decision method. The Italian Presidency held out for the system envisaged by the Convention: that of 50% of the States and 60% of the population. We tried everything to persuade the countries of this, but they would not hear of it. When we realised it would be impossible to reach an agreement, and since agreement on all the other points was possible, we resorted to temporary formulas, proposing that we should maintain the Treaty of Nice until 2014 and introduce the system envisaged by the Convention from 2015 onwards.
Some Member States said yes, others no. So we proposed another formula that was acceptable to the Member States that had previously proved less willing: the Treaty of Nice will be applied and tested for four years. At the end of 2008 we will decide by majority vote whether the Treaty of Nice has worked and should be maintained (if necessary, improvements will be made); or whether it is possible to go on to the double majority – of Member States and the citizens, or whether another voting system has to be found."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples