Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.3.2-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I shall not speak for long, so as not to delay even further the lunchtime of those Members who are still present.
Several Members of this Parliament have proposed that we should start by adopting the study carried out by the European University Institute in Florence. From what I have seen, they are certainly interesting, at least at this early stage, but I am bound to say that they will require a thorough examination.
The Commission will shortly be giving its opinion on this study, Mr President, next week, I believe. Member States will also have to study this document, which inevitably raises many questions. It makes some useful contributions, but, at the same time, the question of whether it really simplifies the situation remains. This is an important matter that cannot be taken lightly and that is certainly not what the French Presidency will be doing.
To conclude, I shall just make two observations on issues that have been raised by two Members of this Parliament, specifically Mrs Isler Béguin, who talked about environmental problems. Our commitment to firmer Union action with regard to the environment and our will to put the conclusions of the Kyoto Summit into practice should not be underestimated. I also wish to say that, with regard to the size of the environmental dimension in all policies, the French Presidency will fulfil its obligations during these six months, in collaboration with the Swedish Presidency, which will follow us, to ensure that continuity is maintained
I shall now finish, but nobody in this place will be surprised, particularly coming from me, if I say a few words about Strasbourg, specifically in response to Mr dell’Alba.
We have taken note of the fact that the European Parliament voted to remove Friday mornings from the part-session. I will say quite frankly that the result of the vote gave us cause for regret and we hope that this is not an attempt to whittle away at Strasbourg’s role or to revive the issue of Parliament’s location. I shall say quite clearly that France, – and here once again for a moment I am speaking on behalf of a major national delegation in the Council – would not be able to accept this. We should really stop endlessly trying to keep the debate on Strasbourg alive.
The Treaties, particularly the Treaty of Amsterdam, are very clear on this point. Instead, we should concentrate on the practical, material aspects of the issue. I am fully aware of the problems encountered by some Members of the European Parliament and I must tell you that the French authorities are extremely sensitive to these issues. We are anxious to see improved air connections to Strasbourg. Through the Presidency of the European Parliament, we have sent a questionnaire to Members, in order to find out their specific, individual needs. We hope that we will have a large response. We are also considering establishing a cross-border platform to coordinate neighbouring airports, which will make it easier to reach Strasbourg, both by air and by road.
Honourable Members of the European Parliament, Mr President of the Commission, these are some of my thoughts, certainly not all of them, that have been stimulated by this debate, which was of extremely high quality and very encouraging for our Presidency.
First of all, I wish to say how delighted I am to be here with you and to be speaking on behalf of the French Government, since I was a Member of the European Parliament, before it was located in this superb hemicycle – between 1994 and 1997. I should like to thank the numerous speakers who have expressed their thoughts, all of which were extremely useful, and particularly those who spoke in French, although it is not their mother tongue. More specifically, I should also like to acknowledge the encouragement given to the French Government by Pervenche Berès and Klaus Hänsch, as well as the ambition sought by some speakers, such as Mr Watson. I would also like to reassure Mr Cohn-Bendit with regard to the vision that drives my government and which has perhaps made an effective contribution to certain positions.
This presidency is being held against the backdrop of a vast movement, which has two components. Firstly, we are in the process of preparing for an enlarged Europe, the united Europe of tomorrow and, as Mr Madelin said, this may involve changing the nature of the Union in addition to changing its size. Secondly, we must bring this Europe closer to its citizens and ensure that it goes further towards fulfilling their aspirations. It is quite clear that, in the wider debate on this issue, there are two phases. There is the shorter-term phase of this Presidency, which is taking place at a pivotal and undoubtedly decisive moment, and then there is the longer-term phase, in which broader approaches will be outlined and in which the future of Europe will really take shape. Here I am talking about a Europe of thirty Members.
Unlike Mr Bayrou, I do not think that it is fair, appropriate or timely today to eradicate these two phases, as it were, and to introduce them both under the French Presidency, because that would entail the risk of complicating the outcome of the IGC or, quite the opposite, to minimise this outcome, and ensure that it would only appear as an annex. Let us focus on the task in hand. Let us see this IGC through with ambition. In doing so we will have established the basis which will enable us to move further towards European construction.
What will we be doing, specifically in this IGC? Our position is quite clear. It is our view that the IGC must succeed, that it is absolutely crucial that it succeeds, but not at any price. Our obligation concerns the means, not the outcome. As Mr Barón Crespo said just now, we want a “nice treaty” in Nice, which means a good treaty, not any old treaty. As Mr Corbett pointed out, it is true that the most important points are, in particular, the extension of qualified majority voting, which generally goes hand in hand with codecision with the European Parliament, and closer cooperation, because this is a bridge between the first and second stages, between the present and the future, since it improves the functioning of the European Union and because it enables us to think about the Europe of tomorrow.
At the same time, however, the French Presidency considers all these things to be connected. Now, following the Feira European Council, and we are delighted that this is the case, four issues have been raised and we must reach a substantial agreement on all of them, by which I mean all four of these questions, and not only concentrate on one or other of them. That is why we will be changing our working methods. We intend to apply ourselves to this task, fully aware that it will be difficult, and we offer our thanks, of course, to the Portuguese Presidency, which has prepared the groundwork very well for us. We shall work with determination, specifically by taking the negotiation into a more political phase, which will perhaps be more ambitious. To this extent, Mr Hänsch is right: the Franco-German partnership that has been re-established and the Franco-German ambition that has been recharged will prove extremely useful.
With regard to the Charter, I must pay tribute to the work carried out by President Herzog and to the Convention. This is a very original type of body, which brings together members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, representatives of Member States and of course, a representative of the Commission. I wish to assure the European Parliament that this Charter is one of our priorities and we hope that the Convention will prove worthy of the task so that we will be able to discuss it in detail at the Biarritz European Council, with a view, as the French President has said, to making as much progress as possible with the content.
I am aware of the more or less unanimous feeling of the European Parliament about the restrictive nature of this Charter. We shall see how much arbitration is required, but the French Presidency takes the view that priority should be given to the substance of this issue, given that any kind of text will be a source of inspiration for all of the European Union’s institutions.
Beyond these issues lies that of the European Union’s constitutional prospects. The first problem with this issue is the agenda, which I think would be difficult to set at this stage. The important thing is to pursue this idea whilst seeking to define its outlines more clearly and whilst thinking about the best method for continuing this exchange of ideas. Like Mr Corbett once again, I feel that we must realise that the term “constitution” may mean the will to speed up European construction and European ambition, but that the term “constitutional” leads, and will inevitably lead, to debate, because it could give rise to, or be nourished and fed by, or include, contents which may turn out to be rather different."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples