[autom.vertaling] Romano Prodi: Een "dynamische economie en een goed werkende Grondwet voor de Europese Unie" (en)

European Parliament - Plenary session; Strasbourg, 22 October 2003

President Cox,

President-in-office of the Council,

Honourable Members,

Today I wish to concentrate on two aspects that I feel are crucial for the Union's future -- the Growth Initiative and the debate on the Constitution within the Intergovernmental Conference.

Let me start with the Growth Initiative.

Honourable Members,

When I last spoke to you, I pointed out that though the underlying fundamentals are good, action is needed to pull the EU economy out of the doldrums. And that action needs to be taken quickly.

That is why the Commission presented the European Initiative for Growth I outlined to you at the beginning of the month. And today I am pleased to say the European Council endorsed our ideas for reviving the economy and stimulating growth and jobs.

The Growth Initiative is simple and practical. It does not seek to alter the priorities of the Lisbon strategy, but to bolster and speed up its implementation.

Its main aims will be to:

(a) overcome the hurdles to coordination, and especially those deriving from red tape;

(b) mobilise the public and private-sector funds needed to finance certain infrastructure projects already on the drawing board and get them started.

That is why we are preparing a quick-start list of infrastructure and R&D projects that have a truly European scale.

The projects selected for the quick-start list will be taken from the longer list of 29 projects put forward earlier this year. They will include major trans-European transport links and projects with a high-technology content.

The quick-start list is driven by two main ideas -- a desire to produce practical results quickly and a concern for compatibility with the sustainable-development goals we have set ourselves.

This desire to produce practical results takes three main forms:

• It takes advantage of the higher rate of potential EU part-financing. The Commission has proposed raising the EU contribution to 30% of the cost of the cross-border component of each project. This brings greater leverage in mobilising private-sector and other public-sector funding.

• It concentrates resources on a small number of mature projects. The impact of investments will be all the greater if financial and organisational efforts are focused on those projects that are ready for take-off instead of being dispersed.

• It selects projects with the highest potential to produce results quickly. This means effectively clearing the biggest obstacles facing cross-border projects (particularly with a view to enlargement), creating jobs, stimulating growth, serving the Single Market, harnessing research and technological innovation, and laying the foundations for structural, long-term improvements to competitiveness.

Secondly, because the quick-start list is driven by a concern for compatibility, the projects selected must be sustainable in ecological as well as in economic and financial terms:

• In particular, the funding must comply with the Stability and Growth Pact.

• And it must be in line with the commitment to improve the quality of expenditure set out in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.

May I express my appreciation at this point for the great spirit of collaboration shown by the European Investment Bank, which has drawn up a meticulous plan for financing this Initiative.

Of course these are not the only valid projects that can be implemented under the Growth Initiative. And I hope others may be added to the quick-start list.

There are several other important aspects to this Initiative.

First, it builds on experience gained previously. In particular:

• It defines the priorities more clearly, as the Commission proposed recently, and concentrates resources on the best projects.

• It coordinates management of phases of major projects better, where appropriate, appointing a coordinator to help resolve difficulties holding up the completion of the works.

• It takes the regulatory environment into account.

• And it tackles other factors that have slowed up completion.

Honourable Members,

Where do we go from here?

I said the European Council has endorsed the ideas in the Initiative. It has given the Commission the green light to prepare a detailed proposal, in conjunction with the European Investment Bank, to put to the heads of State and government in December.

The European Council's endorsement is good news. But though programmes and action plans are all very well and endorsements are fine, they will not in themselves change things on the ground.

That will call for a large dose of political will and effort. The next few months will be an important test for the European Union.

So if we are serious about meeting the Lisbon targets, we must hope that in December the European Council turns words into deeds and puts our plan into action.

Honourable Members,

The other topic I wish to report on is the Intergovernmental Conference.

As you know, the plan is for the Constitution to be approved at the Brussels European Council in December. This will allow a new Treaty of Rome to be signed sometime thereafter and at any rate before the European elections.

I have to say that the European Council did not make much progress towards that goal.

If a Constitution is to be approved in December, it is vital for the Presidency to come forward by mid-November with clear proposals that can meet with consensus.

Remember, the Convention produced a balanced package of proposals and some important innovations. And overall we regard that package as a good basis for discussion.

Of course, it is natural for the Intergovernmental Conference to go into the points that were not addressed by the Convention or not dealt with in sufficient depth.

But there are only a very few points where the draft Constitution needs changing.

The Ministers' discussions of 4 and 13 October show that many of these points concern issues that the Constitution need not settle. They can be worked out in the secondary legislation or in the internal rules of the various institutions.

Today I want to focus on one point that does need addressing at the Conference because it is likely to become a sticking point.

As you know, throughout the last Intergovernmental Conference, I backed the need for a double simple majority for decision-making in the Council.

Such a system would be understandable to our fellow citizens because it would be simple and transparent. It would also make for more efficient and streamlined decision-making.

I have never hidden the fact that on this point I was disappointed with the outcome at Nice.

I did my best to ensure a simple system won out -- a simple majority of at least 50% of the Member States, and a simple majority -- 50% plus one -- of the population.

The draft Constitution put forward by the Convention came up with something slightly more complicated -- 50% of the Member States and 60% of the population.

Not quite what I had hoped for. But I think we can all live with the 50%-60% proposal in the Convention's draft. It meets the test of simplicity and transparency.

It also means decisions have practically the same chances of being adopted successfully as under the complex weighting system concocted at Nice.

There are some who would like to raise the figure for a qualified majority to 66% of the population. We must strongly oppose this idea, which seeks to overturn the balance crafted at the Convention.

It would make it so much easier for a minority to block an initiative and hamstring the Union.

In the way it is made up, the Commission must reflect all national sensibilities.

Even the Convention came out in favour of a Commission comprising one Commissioner from each Member State. But the way it organised this was complicated and unworkable.

So our proposal must not be seen as undoing the "constitutional package" but as a worthwhile contribution to a final compromise. The proof is that a majority of countries are clearly in favour of a Commission with Commissioners coming from each Member State and all enjoying full voting rights. This could point the way to a balanced and politically acceptable solution.

The Commission has put forward suggestions for organising a large Commission that would ensure it is effective in decision-making terms as well as having full legitimacy.

Anyone who imagines the Commission is seeking to introduce a directoire or that we could stray so far from the vision of the founding fathers is clearly way off track. The Commission can play its political role only if it can assert a legitimacy and credibility of its own. And these derive from its close link with national cultures and sensibilities across the whole Union.

One other point that is absolutely vital is ensuring the Constitution can be amended in the future. If changes have to be agreed and ratified unanimously by 25 or more different parties, this will mean in practice that the Constitution cannot be amended.

And if it cannot be amended, it will simply not be workable. It will fall apart at the very first hitch.

Honourable Members,

The European Union needs a dynamic economy and a sound Constitution.

It needs a dynamic economy that generates growth.

Because only growth can strengthen social cohesion, create jobs, bolster our social model, unleash the potential of our universities and research centres, liberate the creative energy of our researchers and designers, our engineers and managers, our tradesmen and our entrepreneurs.

And only a sound Constitution can enable the European Union to play its role properly in Europe and the world.

We must muster the strength of the large Member States and rally the support of the smaller for the good of all.

We must liberate all our energies and harness our resources to the full.

And when we speak of harnessing our resources to the full, I am also thinking of the resources we draw from legal immigration -- the immigrants that form the bulk of the workforce for those tasks our young people no longer want to perform and the qualified technicians we need for our industry.

The whole phenomenon of migration is very difficult to manage. It implies coping with the need to integrate legal immigrants, who must share in the rights that our society guarantees to all, as well as combating illegal immigration and the latter-day trade in human beings that is so unbearable in terms of our values.

This burden should not be borne by individual Member States. Today no one can cope with it satisfactorily, given the lack of a single EU policy approach to the phenomenon.

The Commission has done its part and perhaps even more than its duty. There was the Tampere programme and Thessaloniki too. And now we have undertaken to adopt a proposal very quickly on an agency for common border control and management.

That is a lot but it is not enough. A single policy approach is needed and funding will have to be found to implement it. Common channels must be defined for legal immigration and a global negotiation organised on that basis with the countries of origin, which need to have such legal lists so they can step up measures to discourage these desperate attempts by illegal immigrants.

I cannot close my eyes to these recurring tragedies involving would-be immigrants. And I will not.

Thank you.