Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.1.3-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate.
On the institutional side, there are obvious issues to be resolved, including the questions of representation in Parliament, voting in the Council and the composition of the Commission, while detailed suggestions have been made in relation to the EU Foreign Minister and the presidency of the Council ministries. On the non-institutional side, there are different approaches to the question of the extent of qualified majority voting in the Council. This is not stating anything new, but these are the issues. We will need to strike an overall balance in order to reach agreement.
Let me turn specifically to some of the matters. In response to a number of enquiries regarding the issue of voting rights, the presidency's view on this has been made absolutely clear. The Taoiseach has said that a solution based on dual majority is the one most likely to achieve an overall consensus. In fact, it is clear that is how the decision will be made on voting rights. There continue to be different views as to how the dual majority will be calculated. However, it is interesting and intriguing – and a number of Members have made reference to this – that we are indeed now talking about a dual majority system.
As regards the Commission, there is a shared view that we need a strong and effective Commission. There is also a need to find an appropriate balance between equality, the equally valid requirements for the Commission to be effective and for it to have some form of representational view. Any agreement will have to take all these considerations into account and it will not be difficult to bridge all the different requirements.
Mr Barón Crespo and a number of other speakers also mentioned the issue of the budget. On the question of the budget, I believe the balanced approach is the one most likely to secure agreement. The Italian presidency made a proposal in December which built on that brought forward by the Convention and on the discussions it had with partners in the IGC. We have further explored the matter in recent consultations, including with Parliament, and there is a consensus that budgetary procedures must respect the overall institutional balance.
In conclusion, I very much enjoyed today's debate. I have to say that I was heartened by it and I am very grateful to Members for their positive words and encouragement. Members who have spoken with me on a one-to-one basis know my particular anxieties in this regard, and they know the ambition of the Irish presidency to achieve progress, if progress can be achieved. I have very carefully noted the points that have been made. I very much look forward to a successful outcome to the European Council on 25 and 26 March.
Commissioner Kinnock made the point that the IGC is stage one. This was also touched on by a number of other contributors. That is true. Stage one is agreement at Member State government level and the next stage will be to go on to the various and multifarious ratification processes. This leads me back to the point I made in my introduction: delay will not help the ratification process. I would reiterate that point. Time is not on our side, we need to reach agreement on this matter, as early as it is possible to do so, and the Irish presidency is ambitious that should be the case.
I shall begin with the Lisbon Strategy. The bulk of the debate was on the IGC, and I shall return to that. Mr Watson made a very interesting link between the future prospects for Europe and the new Constitution. He suggested that we should move in tandem in both cases. He is right. Mr Watson and Mr Collins also made a very clear point about the importance of the Lisbon Strategy and the need to keep Lisbon to the fore. Again, they are right. Mrs Sudre has just made a very interesting point about the significance of the strategy in terms of the future.
The Spring European Council and the Lisbon Strategy are key priorities of the Irish presidency, and we look forward to a successful and focussed debate on the vital questions regarding the future economic, social and environmental development of the Union. It is interesting that many of the key issues raised during the debate are ones we have indicated in our preparation and on which we have decided to focus. Our strategy approaching the Lisbon discussion has been to limit the number of areas, and to focus on these in order to make progress.
I was intrigued by all the comments made on the Intergovernmental Conference and the Constitutional Treaty. The views of the clear and overwhelming majority of this House confirm to me the urgency of the task at hand. Mr Duff kindly drew my attention to a motion that is being prepared for adoption by the House. As Mr Barón Crespo reminded us, the recent Eurobarometer poll shows that the people of Europe want a Constitutional Treaty. That is a very significant poll. I note that there are variations in the level of support for the Constitutional Treaty, but the fact that the people want a Constitutional Treaty is something that should weigh heavily in all our considerations.
My good friend and fellow member of the Convention, Mr Voggenhuber, can rest assured that I well remember the day at the Convention when we chinked glasses, listened to the Ode to Joy and all signed a very large postcard. I must say that I do not recognise the rather negative characterisation of the Constitution by another good friend – Mr Bonde. I agree with Mrs Doyle, who was much closer to the mark, that this Constitution certainly does not pave the way for some super-state.
As I have already mentioned, I am not in a position today to go into greater depth on the issues. I fully understand Members' frustration. However, Members understand equally fully that negotiations are at a stage at which it is impossible to be more detailed than we have been. We have entered into discussions in confidence with Member States. We understand fully that people belong to different States and have different views. The presidency's job is to try and create a space in which people can come together to negotiate and align those views.
I therefore understand the frustration at there not having been more detail, and would also confirm that the presidency is anxious to seize any opportunity that exists. We note that there have been changes in attitudes in recent times. Mr Poettering's analysis, for example, was very interesting and he is quite correct that it is critically important to keep the momentum going. It would be a disaster for that momentum to be lost.
Mr Brok was also correct. Everybody now says that they want a Constitution, but one of the frustrations of being in the presidency is that everyone says they want to achieve success but this is always qualified with a 'but'. Mr van den Berg also made a very interesting point. He said that the presidency must bear in mind that a second unsuccessful rendezvous would be a disaster. He is quite correct and we must balance all these issues as we move forward.
A number of Members – particularly Mr Napoletano – have made the point about detail. He has spoken with me on more than one occasion about the outstanding issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples