Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-24-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080624.3.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Mr President. Thank you to everyone, of course, for the praise, congratulations and for the assessment of the Slovenian Presidency. I am very pleased with this. It has repaid not only me but also my many colleagues. Once again I would like to express my thanks for your understanding. You knew that all of us who were involved were doing this for the first time, and in that respect your attitude has been one of solidarity and constructiveness.
If for instance, around the beginning of this century, when decisions were being made in circles – similar in part to those where decisions are being taken now – on the Treaty of Nice, if they had spoken at that time after the first rejection of the Treaty of Nice in the same way as we have heard today from some benches – we would have to take on board the fact that the issue is finished; we simply have to adopt this decision and keep working – then I would not be speaking to you here, since without the Treaty of Nice there would not have been the great enlargement, which in my opinion and also in view of the present results has strengthened the European Union and made it more able to face global challenges. This has already happened before and solutions have always been found. And after none of these solutions was the European Union any smaller. It was larger and stronger. And these solutions will certainly be found now.
It seems to me unproductive to debate and seek solutions in a vicious circle; to talk of there being reasons for having reached deadlock in the ratification of the Lisbon Reform Treaty … in fact the solutions that we do not have, although at the same time we know there are many such solutions that we do not have, are part of the Lisbon Reform Treaty.
To move in this vicious circle means we will get nowhere. I also think we should not delude ourselves that a European Union, which is a complicated mechanism with 27 Member States, can continue to be successfully led and matters harmonised just as they were fifty years ago when there were six Member States, or when there were 12 Member States. We currently have mechanisms that are the same, adapted in parts, as for a base that was significantly smaller and different during the Cold War. Now the world has changed and these mechanisms must also be changed. And we should not delude ourselves that this can be done with some Treaty which would have three articles that we would all know by heart and all understand. That is impossible. And to delude ourselves that we will achieve this means that we are simply not seeking solutions in the right way.
I believe that the European Council has reached the right conclusions as far as a deadlock in the ratification of the Lisbon Reform Treaty is concerned. It has not sought solutions or analyses in fruitless debates that contribute nothing. It has concentrated on what can be done, and has thereby established an atmosphere and a period of time that is productive for seeking solutions. We would be getting nowhere if we spent the next four months in discussion about how, why and where. We need this period of time, of course, to look forward.
Just briefly – in the half minute left – two responses. As regards China and the criticism that we have not focused on several global problems: I think the European Union has in fact done here – including through quiet diplomacy – a great deal to bring about at least the start of dialogue between the Chinese leadership and the Dalai Lama’s representatives. It is no accident that this move was reached during the visit by the President of the European Commission to Beijing. And the Chinese President had already made this known in a letter to me. I hope that this dialogue will continue and that we will reach a solution here, too. It was the European Union that set things in motion. It was not anyone else.
Regarding Cuba, which has been mentioned many times: I personally think it is right that we have reacted to the positive changes in Cuba with our own positive moves – while at the same time no one has claimed that matters there are resolved. There were various proposals about how to move forward. Certainly the European Union cannot sign a partnership agreement with a country where there are many political prisoners. Yet it would also be very wrong not to respond with positive signals to positive moves, otherwise there would simply have been none of these positive incentives. And as Mr Schulz has already said this is also a kind of positive signal of Europe’s flexible policy towards Latin America and the Caribbean.
I am sorry that I am sadly unable to answer certain other questions. I would conclude by stating that I am very glad that the next trio – France, the Czech Republic and Sweden – has taken on those issues from the programme which we have tried to implement in the trio to date – through the cooperation of Portugal, Germany and Slovenia. Within this programme the right priorities have been set, in my view: continued harmonisation of the environmental and energy package, migration policy and, of course, the search for a solution for continued ratification, or rather seeking solutions to this deadlock on the Lisbon Treaty.
I am convinced that the French Presidency, with extensive experience from previous periods, including very serious dilemmas that it faced in the past, will be successful and that in some way the June European Council has already pointed to this continuity. I am therefore convinced that when you deliberate at the end of the year over the report of the French Presidency, many of the issues that we talked about today as being open or broached will be resolved at that time.
So once again a sincere thank you for your constructive cooperation and for the joint efforts we have invested in seeking these solutions. As the only directly elected body in the European Union, the European Parliament is in my opinion at a kind of turning point. Partly so its role can be strengthened, we urgently need a new institutional solution.
I am sorry that we have had to deal with this issue so much today and, of course, at the last European Council, but that is no reason for pessimism. The European Union has sufficient strength to make this step forward. I am convinced that the European Parliament’s role in this debate will be decisive.
As anticipated, most of the discussion was about the Lisbon Treaty. This was also to be expected given that this is one of the key priorities of the European Union. I would just like to explain some misunderstandings regarding the conclusions we reached at the June European Council.
Thank you very much.
The Council did not adopt these conclusions by voting others down. These were not conclusions that would be adopted by voting down the Irish or the Czechs or any other Member States. These were conclusions we adopted by consensus. And they were harmonised with everyone. The Council did not order anyone to carry on with ratification. The Council took note of the information, and took on board the information we obtained from colleagues from countries where the process of ratification of the Lisbon Reform Treaty had not yet been completed, in order to continue the process. The conclusions also state that we took note of this and on that basis established that the procedure was continuing and as I have said, also continued during the period from the referendum in Ireland to the meeting of the European Council.
Therefore, each Member State has the right to decide on the ratification method and also whether the procedure continues or not. I think that conclusion was logical and, of course, the only productive one in this situation. It was not adopted contrary to the will of our Irish colleagues. First of all, as the country holding the Presidency, we naturally harmonised these conclusions with those that have the most sensitive situation at home and, of course, Ireland is at the forefront here.
Regarding the Czech Republic, the European Council did not hand its fate over to the Czech Constitutional Court, because the Czech Senate had already done that. And this is the only such example among the Member States that have not yet ratified the Treaty, as in the process of parliamentary ratification the Czech Senate sent the Treaty to the Constitutional Court for review.
A totally different example in legal terms is that of Germany or the UK, where the process was completed in parliament and then someone requested a ruling from the constitutional court. We are therefore talking about 19 ratifications completed in parliamentary procedure. Of these two are still being reviewed in the constitutional courts.
I draw your attention to the fact that the Lisbon Reform Treaty is an intergovernmental agreement adopted at the intergovernmental conference in Lisbon last October. It was signed by us Heads of State and Government and not by the European Commission. Therefore, blaming the European Commission or the European Parliament for the current complication is a little unfair. We can of course talk of the attitude of European institutions and how the overall situation influences the decision-making in a given country. But then I have to talk for and against: the positive and the negative, without just seeing the negative.
As for whether we view the European Union with confidence or not: for my own country I can say that we view the European Union and its future with great hope. As was said earlier by Mr Peterle – who was at the time with me in government, and he in fact headed the government seventeen years ago – there was a war in June seventeen years ago in Slovenia. At that time the European Union was more than a hope. For us at the time it was the solution. We did not know whether we would survive the next day.
So what we have today, seventeen years later, is a great success for us. We have no reason to lose hope because of certain difficulties of a legal or procedural nature. This seems to me to be an extremely pessimistic approach. I also draw your attention to the fact that this is not the first time the European Union has been in a situation where the process has become entangled and it is necessary to seek solutions. This is not the first time. This has already happened several times to date and solutions were always found. And solutions were always found so that no one was excluded. And now, too, there was no one in the European Council who would propose solutions that exclude anyone. We have taken some time to find a solution that will include everyone."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples