Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.6.4-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – (
A surprising expression sprang from the lips of the last President of the Council, when he presented the summary of the Portuguese Presidency to us on Monday. “We must not”, declared Prime Minister Antonio Guterres, “Allow an intergovernmental drift to take place.” The debate on a federal Europe, which has just begun again, must take place as a whole. Is it not paradoxical to see the representative of the governments of the Member States denouncing the risk of an “intergovernmental drift” in the European Union?
The paradox is even greater as what is clearly obvious to everyone, or almost everyone, today, is that on the contrary federal formulas, and in particular the latest, that of intensified cooperation, inevitably lead to a dead end. In order to try to resolve the inescapable contradiction between federalism and enlargement, particular emphasis has been placed on the miracle formula of intensified cooperation throughout the Portuguese Presidency. It was even presented here on Tuesday by President Chirac, as a sort of universal solution, with a “vanguard” of “pioneer countries” clearing the way for all. Let us note in passing, with regard to vanguards, the reappearance in the framework of European federalism of expressions which were previously widely used in other ideological contexts.
Highlighting such a formula in lyrical and ideological mode conceals the real dangers contained in making the principle of quality majority voting the general rule, thereby eliminating the rule of unanimity.
Not only is closer cooperation itself vigorously denounced, and rightly so, by the small- and medium-sized Member States, as damaging to their integrity, whereas sovereignty is a principle that guarantees the equality and respect of each. However, even within closer cooperation, it is clear that the application of the principle of the majority, in place of unanimity, could create unbearable tension, conferring a monopoly of decision making on one dominant country. Such that it seems that the qualified majority principle, if it cannot be applied to 35, cannot be applied to 2 or 3 either. It is becoming apparent that the “miracle solution” is in fact a dual source of tension, that could profoundly affect European cooperation.
This is why, instead of closer cooperation, which would inevitably lead to dangerous tension, we propose differentiated cooperation, concluded between sovereign States that are free to decide to sign the agreements they want in the areas they want, provided that these are not damaging to the fundamental interests of their partners."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Souchet (UEN ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples