名人演讲稿200字 (英文)
发布网友
发布时间：2022-04-23 05:41
共4个回答
热心网友
时间：2022-06-14 20:54
AND NOW MEMBER OF THE PRAESIDIUM
OF THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE
TO THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER WASHINGTON D.C.
ENTITLED
“PROSPECTS FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE”
Wednesday 13th November 2002 at 4.00 p.m. (U.S.Time)
The Convention on the Future of Europe was set up earlier this year, to proce by June 2003, a basis for a new Constitutional Treaty for the European Union. A Union, that will be able to accommodate up to 30 states.
The European Union is a detailed and binding contract between States, built on the ideal of an ever closer Union between the peoples of Europe. It is a constitutional endeavour of unprecedented scale, and it makes European law superior to laws of the States in all the areas of activity that are the subject of the contract.
In this address I want to deal with the following issues.
1. Why should a United States audience be interested in the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe ?
2. What is the background in recent European history, to the creation of the current Convention on the Future of Europe ?
3. What are the key success factors for the Convention?
4. What are the risks to the project ?
RELEVANCE TO UNITED STATES
The Model of Philadelphia
The results of the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe will strongly influence the way our transatlantic relationships will evolve.
From the perspective of a United States audience it is important to point out the Convention on the Future of Europe is, to some extent, modeled on the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, which led to the forming of a federal United States of America and replaced the con-federal arrangements that had existed since the end of the War of Independence. The formation of the Federal Union of the United States at Philadelphia was driven, as much by necessity as by idealism. As the people who met in Philadelphia too, realized it would be necessary to share some of the functions of Government.
The Convention on the Future of Europe is also driven, to a degree at least, by necessity. As the Union enlarges from 15 to 25 members, the arrangements for 15, already strained, are perceived as being completely inadequate to accommodate a Union of 25 states. But just as there was no consensus in Philadelphia about the ultimate extent of enlargement of the United States, there is no consensus in Brussels today about the ultimate shape and size of the European Union.
While the existing enlargement to include 10 new member states is taken for granted, there is no final consensus about the ultimate limits of the Union. But if the texts being considered are taken literally, there is no theoretical obstacle to Russia joining the European Union, but I doubt if many of the members have really accommodated themselves to that possibility in their hearts as yet. Certainly, if Turkey of which only eastern Thrace is in Europe, is admitted to membership, no theoretical basis would then exist to exclude Russia – the vast bulk of whose population live in Europe.
It is important also to make a comparison between the size of the endeavors undertaken in Philadelphia and in Brussels. In Philadelphia the attempt was being made to unite people, many of whom spoke the same language, and whose population amounted to a mere 4 million people.
On the other hand in Brussels, we are endeavoring to define a constitution that will accommodate up to 500 million people who speak 20 different national languages.
Whereas the Convention members who met in Philadelphia sat in constant session, six days a week from 29th May until 17th September with an average attendance of 30 people, the Convention on the Future of Europe has only sat in plenary session for 20 days, is composed of 105 number of participants, with an average attendance of 85 and is attempting a much larger task in actual and practical terms. Members have much less time, then did the Convention members in Philadelphia, to meet informally in a social setting, the setting in which rable understandings emerge and compromises become visible.
It might also be added that those who met in Philadelphia represented an elite, who could expect to carry their States and constituents with them in whatever they agreed. In Europe in the early 21st century, there is a much less accepting attitude towards the doings of politicians than there might have been in late 18th century America. In some countries the work of the Convention will have to be put to the people in a Referenm, and there is a generally sceptical attitude in sections of the population towards European integration. Furthermore, whereas the meetings in Philadelphia were strictly private, discussions in Brussels are in public.
In Philadelphia, there was a rough consensus before the proceedings began as to what was to be created – a more centralized system for all the States. In the Brussels Convention some members want more centralization to deal with necessary tasks and others want less centralization.
Some of the very same issues, which manifested themselves in Philadelphia so many years ago, are emerging again in Brussels today. The relative representation of smaller and the larger states, so hot an issue in Philadelphia, is an equally heated one in Brussels.
Another common issue is the method for ratification of the new Constitution. The E.U. practice up to now has been that every state must ratify a new constitutional treaty before it comes into effect. At Philadelphia, the ultimate agreement was that it would be sufficient for three-quarters of the states to ratify it for the Constitution to come into effect. Some in Brussels are now advocating that we follow that precedent. This is exceptionally controversial with the smaller states and with those who have to have referenda on E.U. Treaties. They fear being excluded from the Union altogether as a result of a failure to carry in a referenm.
The Marshall Plan
The Marshall plan of the United States in 1947 was a key driver towards the European Union as we know it today.
Secretary of State Marshall made it clear to Europe in May 1947 that U.S. aid for post-war reconstruction would only get Congressional approval, if the European countries took steps to ensure that the money was spent between them in a co-operative way. In Paris, just a month later, sixteen nations met to form the European Economic Co-Operation Organization – later to become the O.E.C.D. The dismantling of intra-European trade barriers, the setting up of a European Payments Union (the fore-runner of the present single currency) and the Treaty of Rome itself can all be traced back to the requirements of the Marshall initiative.
The Role of President George Bush Snr
More recently still, the United States has played a key role in setting the scene for the present phase in European history – the enlargement of the Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe. In 1989 The United States had a choice. It was clear that the Soviet Empire was beginning to dissolve. Gorbachev was still in power. The United States could then have sought to prop up the Soviet Union. A plan was put forward by Henry Kissinger for a Yalta-like agreement over the heads of the East Europeans to maintain spheres of influence in Europe. This would have prevented the integration of countries of the former Warsaw Pact in the European Union, leaving some or all of them in a Russian sphere of influence.
President George Bush Snr., chose not to take that course. In an important speech on the 17th April 1989, in Hamtramck Michigan, the President said
“We dream of the day when Eastern European peoples will be free to choose their system of government and to vote in regular, free, contested elections. We dream of the day when Eastern European countries will be free to choose their own peaceable course in the world, including closer ties with Western Europe”.
The President went on to say :
“The true source of tension is the imposed and unnatural division of Europe. We accept no spheres of influence that deny the sovereign rights of nations”.
In a speech at Boston University on 21st May 1989, he went even further.
He said “
“This administration is of one mind. We believe a strong, united Europe, means a strong America”.
What we are doing in Brussels now, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, is making arrangements to ensure that the strong United Europe envisaged in 1989 by President Bush, comes into operation on a basis that will work in practical terms.
The United States thus has a huge investment in Europe, - moral, political, economic and strategic. It should not see a united Europe as a threat to United States interests, but rather as the fulfillment of a long-sighted, well considered, United States strategy.
There is mutual inter-dependence between Europe and the United States. We must make that structure of mutual inter-dependence work to the benefit of everyone.
THE EUROPEAN HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE CONVENTION
I now move to my second question – What is the background, in recent European history to the creation of the Convention on the Future of Europe? The Europeans were determined never again to be at war with one another. In an historic declaration on the 9th May 1950, Robert Schumann Minister for Foreign Affairs of France stated that :
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create de-facto solidarity”.
In other words, he opted for a functional method of integration, building on results achieved, rather than an idealized system towards which one would then work.
The first step towards creating de-facto solidarity was the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community. Given that coal and steel were the traditional instruments of war, it was essential that the coal and steel instries of Germany and France would be so integrated with one another that neither would ever again be independent enough to go to war with the other.
Germany and France were in future to be like boxers in a clinch, so close to one another that neither could swing a punch !
This worked.
Six countries then moved on to a more ambitious stage when in 1955 in the Messina Declaration, they envisaged the creation of a common free market in goods between Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Britain was also invited to join. This common market was finally launched in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (without Britain).
It was based on four fundamental freedoms, freedom of movement of goods, freedom of movement of salaried workers, freedom of establishment of businesses, and freedom of capital movements.
In 1973, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, joined this Common Market. Greece joined in 1981, Spain and Portugal joined in 1986 and Austria, Finland and Sweden became members in 1995.
But by the mid 1980’s it had been found that the planned Common Market had not been fully achieved. This was because so many of the decisions, necessary to allow free movement of goods like common standards for labelling, had to taken by unanimous vote.
This unanimous voting system was abandoned for market opening measures, in the Single European Act of 1987. This Act committed the members to adopt measures to progressively establish a fully free and open internal market by the end of 1992.
The next stage was the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992. This Treaty took forward four basic projects.
The first was the establishment of a single European currency (eventually achieved in 1999).
The second was the establishment of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (still very far from being achieved – although some progress has been made).
The third was the introction of a concept of citizenship of the Union in addition to indivial citizenship of indivial member states. (This is a rather vague aspiration, so it is unclear whether it has been achieved or not).
Fourthly, Maastricht envisaged closer co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs –crime and civil law co-operation. (Slow but steady progress has been made here. We now have a common European Arrest Warrant, to provide for free extradition between member states, but that only came about as a response to September 11th)
The next landmark in Europe’s development was the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. It set out to place employment and citizen’s rights at the heart of the Union and to give Europe a stronger voice in world affairs.
Then the Treaty of Nice, of 2000 made new arrangements to alter the composition of the European Commission, for weighting of votes in the European Council, and for more majority voting, to prepare for the accession of 10 new members mainly from central and eastern Europe.
All of these different treaties have been added on top of one another. Each was an amendment of a previous treaty. Thus they are almost impossible to read in any coherent way. They cannot be compared to the comparatively readable, and simple, United States constitution.
One of the roles that has now been given to the Convention on the Future of Europe is to proce a single simple treaty, that will bring together all the strands in the earlier Treaties.
The mandate of the Convention on the Future of Europe is set out in an Annex to the communiqué issued at the European Council (of Heads of State and Prime Ministers) in Laeken on 14th and 15th December 2001. It stated :-
“At long last, Europe is on the way to becoming one big family, without blood-shed. This is a real transformation clearly calling for a different approach from 50 years ago when six countries first took the lead”.
It then said what the Convention had to do.
Firstly, it was to achieve a better vision and definition of competences in the European Union as between the Union, its different institutions, and indivial member states.
It was to simplify the Union’s instruments, in other words to simplify the way the European Union makes laws and enforces them.
It was to introce more democracy, transparency and efficiency into the European Union. This raised questions such as how the European Commission should be elected, in particular how its President might be chosen.
It was also asked to consider whether the European Union needed a single electoral method for selecting members of the European Parliament, whether the powers of the European Parliament should be enhanced, and whether there should be a greater role for the parliaments of member states in European integration.
Finally, it was also asked to consider whether more issues should be decided by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers (e.g. foreign policy and crime policy), and whether the proceedings of the Council of Ministers should be more open to the public.
In addition to its Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, the Convention is composed of 15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States (one from each Member State), 30 members of national parliaments (two from each Member State), 16 members of the European Parliament and two Commission representatives. The accession candidate countries will be fully involved in the Convention’s proceedings. They will be represented in the same way as the current Member States (one government representative and two national parliament members) and will be able to take part in the proceedings without, however, being able to prevent any consensus which may emerge among the Member States.
The members of the Convention may only be replaced by alternate members if they are not present.
The Praesidium of the Convention is made up of the Convention Chairman and Vice-Chairmen and nine members drawn from the Convention (two representatives of all the governments holding the Council Presidency ring the Convention, two national parliament representatives, two European Parliament representatives and two Commission representatives).
Three representatives of the Economic and Social Committee with three representatives of the European social partners; from the Committee of the Regions: six representatives (to be appointed by the Commmittee of the Regions from the regions, cities and regions with legislative powers), and the European Ombudsman will be invited to attend as observers. The Presidents of the Court of Justice and of the Court of Auditors may be invited by the Praesidium to address the Convention.
SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE CONVENTION
The main areas in which progress has so far been made has been the agreement that the Union should have a single legal personality, on how the treaties might be simplified, on the basic structure of a simplified treaty, and on introcing mechanisms to ensure that the so-called principle of subsidiarity works. There is an excellent spirit of consensus in the Convention, and it is likely we will reach agreement on opening up the legislative sessions of the Council of Ministers to the public.
The main area in which the Convention notably failed to reach consensus is that of economic governance (which concerns the economic policy underpinning the Euro). The Convention has not yet really started to deal with the most difficult issue of all– the institutional arrangements – the distribution of powers between the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and the relationship of voting strength between small and large states.
What are the key success factors for the Convention on the Future of Europe ?
It is important to stress that the job of the Convention is to proce a document that will be the basis for a draft treaty. That draft will then go to an Inter Governmental Conference, where the member governments of the European Union will make the final decisions.
Vital Role of Government Representatives
The extent to which the Convention representatives of governments can bind their own governments at home will be crucial. If government representatives agree to things in the Convention, which are subsequently disavowed by their home governments, that will make nonsense of the Convention. This places a huge, but entirely necessary, burden on the shoulders of the government representatives in the Convention.
My own feeling is that some of the representatives of member governments do not have sufficiently precise instructions from their home governments. Some member governments are paying insufficient attention to the work of the Convention.
Their representatives are forced to make it up as they go along. This, if it continues when we get into the real crucial negotiating stage, will be a recipe for failure.
It is essential that member governments address this now, re-read the Laeken declaration thoroughly, give very clear instructions to their representatives. These instructions should contain a provision for referring back to ensure that an initial position can be modified, as part of a dynamic negotiating process leading to ultimate consensus and agreement.
A European battle against organized crime and terrorism
If the European Union is to win the maximum support of its citizens, it must show that it can deliver concrete results on issues that really matter to people. The Convention will be deemed to be a success if it shows that it has put in place mechanisms for making Europe’s streets safe, and helping in the battle against global terrorism.
热心网友
时间：2022-06-14 22:12
Samuel Ullman
Youth is not a time of life; it is a state of mind; it is not a matter of rosy cheeks, red lips and supple knees; it is a matter of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions; it is the freshness of the deep springs of life.
Youth means a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. This often exists in a man of 60 more than a boy of 20. Nobody grows old merely by a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals.
Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. Worry, fear, self-distrust bows the heart and turns the spring back to st.
Whether 60 or 16, there is in every human being’s heart the lure of wonder,the unfailing childlike appetite of what’s next and the joy of the game of living. In the center of your heart and my heart there is a wireless station: so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage and
power from men and from the Infinite, so long are you young.
When the aerials are down, and your spirit is covered with snows of cynicism and the ice of pessimism, then you are grown old, even at 20, but as long as your aerials are up, to catch waves of optimism, there is hope you may die young at 80.
这个文章很出名,关于青春的
参考资料：http://ke.baidu.com/view/1075402.html?wtp=tt
热心网友
时间：2022-06-14 23:46
Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new Nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal. Now, we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that Nation, or any nation soconceived and so dedicated, can long enre. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who gave their lives that Nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that this Nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the People by the People and for the People shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
热心网友
时间：2022-06-15 01:38
