Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-03-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000703.6.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Prime Minister, I hope you understand, as a former Parliamentarian yourself, that in Parliament it is on political issues that we should focus our debate. There are at least two questions that I wish to ask you with regard to your speech. First of all, I was surprised to hear you criticise what you called ‘a shift towards an intergovernmental approach’, because, if one thing has occurred in the six months of the Portuguese Presidency, it is that the Council has actually become stronger at the expense of the Commission and Parliament. This was also clear from your words when you described the Employment Summit as ‘showing a strong desire for political leadership of the Union’, demonstrating that, in fact, you see this as leadership by the Council at the expense of the other two institutions. It is therefore worth tempering words and intentions with reality.
If we look at the most uncomfortable issue of the last six months, which I admit you would not really want to discuss here, that is, the Austrian question, we see the extent of the shift in recent months. There are aspects of the Austrian question that are very dangerous for the future of the Union. The impasse in which the Union found itself at the Feira Council shows exactly why this shift is so dangerous. First of all, it replaced the principle of collegiality in Union decisions with a greater emphasis on bilateral action between Governments. If anyone should never have acted as spokesperson for the Fourteen, it was you, as President of the European Union. You should never, under any circumstances, have acted as spokesperson, even if you felt that Portugal should agree to the sanctions against Austria. As a result of your action, the Austrian question has become a European Union issue. From the institutional point of view, this issue will clearly taint the European Union’s internal relations unless it is quickly resolved. We all know that in order not to lose face, the basis of a resolution has already been negotiated. This basis of a resolution, however, is a sign of weakness: weakness, essentially, on the part of the Fourteen countries that have taken a political initiative and do not know how to get out of it. In contemporary politics, the trend towards handing political decisions to experts and judges shows just how weak politicians are. These sanctions originated from a political measure and the same people who initiated them should have had the courage to take the decision to lift them. This should have been done at Feira.
As to the Intergovernmental Conference, unfortunately I do not have much speaking time left, but I must say that dangerous trends are being followed there too. I am not against closer cooperation, but it must be made quite clear that closer cooperation falls within the area of the Union’s sectoral policies and is not an institutional or political matter. Otherwise, at some point in the future, we will have two European Unions, a first- and a second-class Union. This situation would put an end to what has been the driving force of the European Union and the European Community since the Second World War. Closer cooperation must therefore not lead to a two-speed Europe. Instead, it must enable whoever wants to do so to move forward more quickly in terms of sectoral policies, but not in terms of the institutions, or else we will risk splitting the Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples