Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.4.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have, of course, listened with great interest to the comments made by all the groups through their chairmen’s speeches. I shall simply make a few comments and then leave Mr Moscovici the task of answering all the questions dealing with specific matters.
Having heard what Mr Poettering had to say, I wish to make a general observation. I understand and share the ambition of a Chamber such as yours, which is by vocation, by definition, to assert a vision of the Europe of tomorrow or even of the more distant future, and to ensure that ongoing impetus is given to these changes and to the implementation of this vision. I understand this perfectly as it is your role and I would even say, your function.
Then there is also, of course, the reality of the situation, the daily reality, the opportunity for the public represented by their governments to accept the pace of these changes and even their objectives. In the framework of European integration, I have been struck several times by the claim by a Head of State or Government that, “of course, we could take that path, but the fact is that the public in my country would not accept it”.
Incidentally, the political position of my own government is at stake in this matter. Beyond that, however, and more seriously, the accession process, whether adopted by means of a referendum or by parliament, risks sanctioning changes that have not been approved and which would consequently bring European integration to an end. That is the danger. I shall not mention any names of course, but certain Heads of State or Government say, with regard to sensitive issues, and rightly so because they are in the best position to understand them as the democratically appointed representatives of their people, what is acceptable or not to public opinion in their countries.
It is all very well to integrate Europe as quickly as possible, but if we come up against a refusal that threatens the whole structure and which leads to everything grinding to a halt, then this is not what we want to see at all. We must move ahead as quickly as possible, but we must take care to avoid obstacles that would drag the process out indefinitely. There is therefore a trick to carrying off this process, in which everyone must play their role. It is up to the governments, which are – I repeat – representatives democratically appointed by their citizens, to lead them and to see the limits that they can or cannot exceed and the pace that they can accept as a whole. It is up to others, mainly Parliament and the Commission, to provide the necessary impetus and to convince the public. In other words, we must make our minds up but we must also convince, as decisions that do not convince are not particularly useful.
I have simply tried to highlight all of the negative comments made about the outcome of the Nice Summit, because I know very well what would have happened if no agreement had been reached, which was a possibility right up to the last minute. Enlargement would have been halted, which would have been the worst situation in which we could have found ourselves. Our objective was first and foremost to put ourselves in a position in which we could enable enlargement to take place. Well, we achieved that objective. It is true that this does not fulfil all the ambitions that we might have, which are legitimate, noble, and justified and which I share, but the time also comes when realism must be applied, in one way or another.
This was a general observation, to which I shall add two more specific observations following on from what Mr Poettering said about the shortcomings of majority voting and the development of qualified majority voting. The Presidency regrets these shortcomings and itself had reservations and made a considerable effort to ensure that France made progress in areas about which it is particularly sensitive. I am sorry that not everyone was able to adopt the same attitude. Here too, however, there is the problem of the citizens concerned and of the responsibilities that their representatives may or may not assume. Let us not forget that, with regard to referendums, some countries have voted against whilst others voted in favour – I am referring here to Maastricht – and rightly so. There are, therefore, also constraints that must be appreciated."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples