Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am addressing the Commission President and the President-in-Office of the Council in French in order to get my message across as clearly as possible.
In addressing you, I wish to raise an idea put forward by my working party within the PPE-DE Group, and not to discuss the problems that we have as Conservatives. We have major reservations on many issues, especially the Charter of Fundamental Rights, for various reasons. I do not wish to discuss that. I shall leave that to others. My main idea is as follows: to concentrate on what will happen after Nice.
We are aware, from the speeches made by President Chirac in this place in July, that at least three major topics stand out, namely the simplification of the Treaties, the sharing of jurisdiction between European, national and regional levels, what I might term the rights of states in the American expression (Section 10 of the American Constitution), and, thirdly, the balance between the institutions – though here we should especially, perhaps, consider the role of the national parliaments – i.e. how is our institution to be managed in future. We await a Commission report on this issue of governance.
Would it not be a good idea, before going any further, to consult our peoples and involve them in what we are doing, instead of waiting for the outcome, then subjecting it to a referendum, even though they do not know what has happened? So my third question is this: how is this business going to be managed? What is the timetable? What is the procedure? And who is to participate in the system?
Mr President, are we going to wait until the next IGC, until 2003-2004 before we can have a debate on these fundamental issues? In my opinion, this is something we should begin directly following the outcome of Nice.
My second area of concern is procedure. The Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is right, we have to forget the IGC, the wise men and the closed doors. We must instigate a major debate among the citizens of Europe, getting them involved in our debates. My third point concerns participation. The candidate countries should certainly participate, but not necessarily the countries with which we have not yet started negotiations, such as Turkey. I think that is going a little too far.
In conclusion, I urge you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council and Mr President of the Commission to give some thought to the provisions which would have to be incorporated into the Treaty of Nice in order for us to have this major debate and to avoid the utterly Kremlin-style approach of agreeing matters behind closed doors, in order to instigate debate with a view to a new European framework, whether or not it be constitutional, so that we may have direct contact with our electorate and may make a major success of the European Union in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples