Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.22.3-328"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg nogensinde har fået tildelt så meget tid her i Parlamentet, men jeg er glad for, at det sker i selskab med en udvalgt skare!
Mit sidste punkt - med hvilke midler og af hvem Parlamentet vil blive underrettet på forhånd om den holdning, Kommissionen indtager inden for forskellige organer i energifællesskabstraktaten - er blevet besvaret generelt i kommissærens brev. Men jeg vil gerne opfordre ham til at dele yderligere tanker, han måtte have vedrørende detaljerne i gennemførelsen af disse løfter, med Parlamentet.
Endelig kommer jeg til det afgørende element: om Parlamentet bør stemme for henstillingen. Lad mig sige, at jeg anerkender Kommissionens gode hensigter, når den tilbyder at underrette mit udvalg om det arbejde, der bliver gjort med forberedelsen af og forhandlingen om denne traktat, selv om vores reaktion kunne have været mere imødekommende og mindre mistænksom over for, hvad der blev foreslået, hvis det ikke var kommet ud af den blå luft, uden at vi havde noget forhåndskendskab til det.
Jeg anerkender og påskønner også Kommissionens bestræbelser på at overtale Rådet til at føre denne traktat ad vejen til proceduren med samstemmende udtalelse i stedet for at forsøge at liste den igennem. Men jeg må bemærke, at det var efter, at vi begyndte at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved en mulig imperialisme fra Kommissionens side.
Denne traktat kunne give et vigtigt budskab til landene i Sydøsteuropa og endnu længere borte, nemlig at EU er i stand til at se ud over sig selv og ønsker at inddrage dem i familien af europæiske nationer. Jeg er ikke helt sikker på, hvor meget trøst Bulgarien vil få af dette i betragtning af den tidligere beslutning om at gennemtvinge en tidlig lukning af Kozloduy - en beslutning, som der efter min opfattelse ikke længere er nogen teknisk retfærdiggørelse for, men måske kunne traktaten hjælpe til at afbalancere dette negative budskab.
Jeg vil slutte med at udtrykke et håb om, at Rådet i særdeleshed vil være i stand til at give os tilstrækkelig trøst her til aften, så vi kan gå videre til en positiv afstemning i morgen.
Jeg vil gerne begynde med at sige noget mere om hensigten med vores to spørgsmål til Rådet og Kommissionen. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at det er
spørgsmål - selv om det er glædeligt for mig at se mit navn på dem, så er spørgsmålene stillet på vegne af mit udvalg.
Jeg er meget glad for at se, at formandskabet trods alt kan være til stede. Jeg erkender, at dette kan have været ubelejligt, men at have denne debat på dette tidspunkt er også i nogen grad ubelejligt for mig. Jeg kunne være et andet sted og spise asparges.
Fordi Rådet har ændret det oprindelige kommissionsforslag med hensyn til den rolle, Parlamentet skal spille i høringsprocedurer, til simpelthen at underrette Parlamentet om beslutninger, som Rådet træffer, må jeg spørge, hvorfor det ser ud til, at Rådet forsøger at komme uden om Parlamentet. Hvad kan Rådet have at skjule? I forbindelse med den åbenlyse modvilje mod at møde op her i aften har substansen i vores spørgsmål øget relevans. Tillad mig derfor at minde Rådets repræsentant, hr. Winkler, om vores to spørgsmål.
Det første er: Hvilken mekanisme forestiller Rådet sig til forudgående information af Parlamentet forud for vedtagelsen af Rådets holdning omkring institutionerne i energifællesskabstraktaten? For det andet: Med hvilke midler og af hvem vil Parlamentet blive informeret på forhånd om den stilling, som EU's repræsentanter indtager i energifællesskabstraktatens organer, såsom den permanente gruppe på højt plan? Før Parlamentet bliver indbudt til at stemme om anbefalingerne vedrørende energifællesskabstraktaten i morgen, har vi brug for nogle svar og forsikringer fra Rådet vedrørende disse punkter, og jeg og andre vil høre omhyggeligt efter.
Eftersom dette er en meget vigtig sag, skaber den traktat, der er stillet forslag om, en interessant præcedens ved at udstrække
på et begrænset og meget specifikt område til tredjelande, selv om to af dem måske snart tilslutter sig EU, mens andre befinder sig på forskellige stadier af forhandlinger om tiltrædelse.
Det er også vigtigt, fordi energi i øjeblikket ses som et meget vigtigt spørgsmål, hovedsagelig på grund af begivenheder ved årets begyndelse. Disse begivenheder var noget i retning af at kaste en stor sten i en dam, så der blev skabt ringe. Energi er vitalt for vores livsform, for vores livskvalitet og for vores levestandard, så det er også vigtigt, hvordan vi organiserer markederne og sikrer vores forsyninger.
Idet jeg nu går over til spørgsmålet til Kommissionen, vil jeg gerne begynde med at anerkende den høje grad af samarbejde og den positive reaktion på vores bekymringer, som vi har fået fra hr. Piebalgs. Faktisk glæder jeg mig over hans åbne og konstruktive holdning ved møderne og i det brev, han sendte for nylig om problemerne i forbindelse med underretningen af Parlamentet om energifællesskabets aktiviteter, hvor han tog fat på nogle af de emner, der bekymrer mit udvalg omkring sociale spørgsmål og menneskerettighedsspørgsmål. Jeg er sikker på, at Rådet vil tilslutte sig hans tilbud om at underrette Parlamentet på forhånd om EU's holdning, der i vigtige spørgsmål skal forebringes energifællesskabets institutioner. Jeg glæder mig over forsikringen i hans brev om, at han finder det yderst vigtigt, at Parlamentet er fuldt ud informeret på forhånd om vigtige beslutninger, der skal træffes af energifællesskabet.
Nu kommer jeg til de præcise detaljer, der er indeholdt i vores spørgsmål til Kommissionen, og som jeg føler stadig kræver et svar. Rådets beslutning om indgåelse af energifællesskabstraktaten fastslår i artikel 4, stk. 3, bestemmelser for at yde "
" (gensidig bistand i tilfælde af afbrydelse) - se traktatens afsnit IV, kapitel IV. Men alligevel står der om afgørelser i samme artikel, at EU's holdning "
" "
" (under særlige omstændigheder kan gå ud over
). Så det første spørgsmål er: Hvad kan disse særlige omstændigheder bestå i? Det andet spørgsmål er: Hvad menes der med sætningen, at det: "
" (kan gå ud over
)? Jeg anmoder kommissæren om at konkretisere disse to spørgsmål for os."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob mir jemals so viel Zeit in diesem Haus zustand, aber ich freue mich, dass ich sie in erlesener Gesellschaft verbringen kann!
Der letzte Punkt – auf welchem Weg und von wem das Parlament vorab von dem Standpunkt unterrichtet wird, den die Kommission in den verschiedenen Institutionen des Energiegemeinschaftsvertrags vertreten wird – wurde bereits im Schreiben des Kommissars in etwa beantwortet. Dennoch fordere ich ihn auf, dass er das Parlament in mögliche weitere Überlegungen zur Umsetzung dieses Vorhabens im Einzelnen einbezieht.
Ich komme nun zur Kernfrage des Ganzen, nämlich ob das Parlament für die Empfehlung stimmen sollte. Festzuhalten ist, dass ich die gute Absicht der Kommission würdige, meinen Ausschuss über die Arbeiten bei der Vorbereitung und Aushandlung dieses Vertrags auf dem Laufenden zu halten, auch wenn unsere Reaktion auf die Vorschläge etwas wohlwollender und weniger skeptisch ausgefallen wäre, wenn sie nicht aus heiterem Himmel gekommen wären und wir zuvor Bescheid gewusst hätten.
Loben und anerkennen muss ich auch die Bemühungen der Kommission, den Rat dazu zu bringen, diesen Vertrag im Zustimmungsverfahren auf den Weg zu bringen, anstatt ihn ohne Diskussion durchzudrücken. Allerdings muss ich sagen, dass dies erst der Fall war, nachdem wir begonnen hatten, Fragen zu einem eventuellen Streben nach Machtzuwachs seitens der Kommission zu stellen.
Von diesem Vertrag könnte eine wichtige Botschaft an die Länder Südosteuropas und sogar darüber hinaus ausgehen, nämlich dass die EU in der Lage ist, den Blick nach außen zu richten, und sie in die europäische Völkerfamilie aufnehmen will. Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, ob das für Bulgarien ein großer Trost ist, da ja zuvor beschlossen wurde, Kozloduy vorzeitig stillzulegen – eine Entscheidung, der meines Erachtens technisch nicht mehr gerechtfertigt ist, aber vielleicht ist dieser Vertrag eine kleine Entschädigung für diese schlechte Nachricht.
Zum Schluss möchte ich der Hoffnung Ausdruck verleihen, dass uns insbesondere der Rat heute Abend genug Trost spenden kann, damit die Abstimmung morgen positiv ausgeht.
Zu Beginn möchte ich auf den Gegenstand unserer beiden Anfragen an den Rat und die Kommission eingehen. Vielleicht sollte ich betonen, dass es sich um
Anfragen handelt – auch wenn es mich freut, meinen Namen auf ihnen zu sehen, so sind es doch Anfragen im Namen des Ausschusses.
Mit großer Freude nehme ich zur Kenntnis, dass der Ratsvorsitz nun doch anwesend sein kann. Ich sehe ein, dass dies mit gewissen Unannehmlichkeiten verbunden ist, aber eine Aussprache zu dieser Uhrzeit ist auch für mich mit Unannehmlichkeiten verbunden, schließlich könnte ich jetzt woanders Spargel essen.
Da der Rat den ursprünglichen Kommissionsvorschlag dahingehend geändert hat, dass das Europäische Parlament bei Ratsbeschlüssen nicht mehr konsultiert, sondern nur noch informiert werden soll, würde ich gern wissen, warum der Rat anscheinend das Parlament zu umgehen versucht. Was hätte der Rat zu verbergen? Da es ihm offensichtlich widerstrebt, heute Abend hier zu sein, bekommt unsere Frage zusätzlich Gewicht. Lassen Sie mich deshalb den Vertreter des Rates, Herrn Winkler, an unsere beiden konkreten Anfragen erinnern.
Die Erste lautet: Welchen Mechanismus sieht der Rat für die Unterrichtung des Parlaments vor der Festlegung eines Standpunkts des Rates zu den Institutionen des Energiegemeinschaftsvertrags vor? Und zweitens: Auf welchem Weg und von wem wird das Parlament vorab von dem Standpunkt unterrichtet, den die Vertreter der Europäischen Gemeinschaft in den Institutionen des Energiegemeinschaftsvertrags vertreten, wie etwa der Ständigen Hochrangigen Gruppe? Bevor das Parlament morgen aufgefordert wird, über die Empfehlung zum Energiegemeinschaftsvertrag abzustimmen, brauchen wir Antworten und Zusicherungen des Rates zu diesen Punkten. Ich und andere werden hier aufmerksam zuhören.
Da es sich hierbei um ein sehr wichtiges Thema handelt, schafft der Vertrag einen interessanten Präzedenzfall, indem der gemeinsame Besitzstand in einem begrenzten und sehr spezifischen Bereich auf Drittländer ausgedehnt wird, wenngleich zwei davon sehr bald der Europäischen Union beitreten dürften und sich andere in verschiedenen Phasen der Beitrittsverhandlungen befinden.
Wichtig ist es auch deshalb, weil Energie zurzeit als ein sehr wichtiges Thema wahrgenommen wird, was vor allem mit den Ereignissen zu Beginn dieses Jahres zusammenhängt. Die Ereignisse glichen einem großen Stein, den man in einen Teich wirft und der dann kleine Wellen schlägt. Energie ist für unsere Lebensweise, unsere Lebensqualität und unseren Lebensstandard unverzichtbar, und deshalb ist die Art und Weise, wie wir die Märkte organisieren und die Versorgungssicherheit gewährleisten, von ebensolcher Bedeutung.
Was die Anfrage an die Kommission betrifft, so möchte ich gleich zu Beginn anerkennen, dass Kommissar Piebalgs intensiv mit uns zusammengearbeitet und auf unsere Anliegen positiv reagiert hat. Ich begrüße seine offene und konstruktive Haltung während der Treffen und in dem jüngsten Brief, in dem es um die Unterrichtung des Parlaments über die Tätigkeiten der Energiegemeinschaft ging und auf einige Anliegen meines Ausschusses zu sozialen und Menschenrechtsfragen eingegangen wurde. Ich hoffe, der Rat bekräftigt sein Angebot, das Parlament vorab über die Haltung, die von der Europäischen Gemeinschaft gegenüber den Institutionen der Energiegemeinschaft in wichtigen Fragen einzunehmen ist, zu unterrichten. Ich begrüße die in seinem Schreiben gemachte Beteuerung, dass er eine umfassende Unterrichtung des Parlaments vor wichtigen Entscheidungen der Energiegemeinschaft für eminent wichtig hält.
Ich komme nun zu den konkreten Punkten, die in unserer Anfrage an die Kommission enthalten sind und meines Erachtens noch einer Antwort bedürfen. Der Beschluss des Rates über den Abschluss des Vertrags zur Gründung der Energiegemeinschaft enthält in Artikel 4 Absatz 3 die Bestimmungen über „gegenseitige Unterstützung im Fall der Unterbrechung der Netzenergieversorgung“ – siehe Titel IV Kapitel IV des Vertrags. Dennoch bestimmt derselbe Artikel des Beschlusses, dass der Standpunkt der Europäischen Gemeinschaft „unter besonderen Umständen über den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand hinausgehen“ kann. Die erste Frage lautet also: Worin bestehen diese besonderen Umstände? Die zweite Frage ist: Was ist gemeint mit „über den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand hinausgehen“? Ich möchte den Kommissar bitten, uns diese beiden Punkte doch etwas konkreter zu erläutern."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν απήλαυσα ποτέ στο παρελθόν τόσο μεγάλη άνεση χρόνου σε αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο, αλλά χαίρομαι που έχω συντροφιά μια εκλεκτή ομάδα!
Το τελευταίο σημείο –με ποιον τρόπο και ποιος θα ενημερώνει το Κοινοβούλιο εκ των προτέρων σχετικά με τις θέσεις της Επιτροπής στα διάφορα όργανα της Συνθήκης για την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα– έχει απαντηθεί σε γενικές γραμμές στην επιστολή του Επιτρόπου. Ωστόσο, τον καλώ να μοιραστεί με το Κοινοβούλιο οποιεσδήποτε περαιτέρω σκέψεις σχετικά με τη λεπτομερή τήρηση αυτών των δεσμεύσεων.
Τέλος, υπεισέρχομαι στην ουσία του ζητήματος: κατά πόσον το Κοινοβούλιο πρέπει να υπερψηφίσει τη σύσταση. Επιτρέψτε μου να πω ότι αναγνωρίζω τις καλές προθέσεις της Επιτροπής, η οποία προσφέρθηκε να ενημερώνει την επιτροπή μου για τις εργασίες κατά την προετοιμασία και τη διαπραγμάτευση της εν λόγω Συνθήκης· εντούτοις, πιθανόν να είχαμε αντιδράσει θετικότερα και με λιγότερη καχυποψία στην πρόταση, αν δεν ήταν τόσο αιφνίδια και αν γνωρίζαμε οτιδήποτε για αυτήν εκ των προτέρων.
Αναγνωρίζω επίσης και εκτιμώ τις προσπάθειες της Επιτροπής με σκοπό να πείσει το Συμβούλιο να ακολουθήσει τη διαδικασία της σύμφωνης γνώμης όσον αφορά την εν λόγω Συνθήκη αντί, όπως έπραξε, να την εγκρίνει χωρίς να έχει προηγηθεί συζήτηση. Ωστόσο, οφείλω να παρατηρήσω ότι αυτό συνέβη αφού αρχίσαμε να κάνουμε λόγο για πιθανό απολυταρχισμό της Επιτροπής.
Η Συνθήκη αυτή θα μπορούσε να απευθύνει ένα σημαντικό μήνυμα προς τις χώρες της Νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης και ακόμη παραπέρα, ότι δηλαδή η ΕΕ δύναται να είναι εξωστρεφής και επιθυμεί να τις υποδεχθεί στην οικογένεια των ευρωπαϊκών εθνών. Δεν γνωρίζω με βεβαιότητα πόσο παρήγορο μπορεί να είναι αυτό για τη Βουλγαρία, δεδομένης της προηγούμενης απόφασης να επιβληθεί η πρόωρη διακοπή της λειτουργίας του αντιδραστήρα του Κοζλοντούι – απόφαση η οποία στερείται πλέον οιασδήποτε τεχνικής αιτιολογικής βάσης, κατά την άποψή μου· ωστόσο, ίσως η εν λόγω Συνθήκη να μπορέσει να αντισταθμίσει αυτό το αρνητικό μήνυμα.
Εκφράζω, εν κατακλείδι, την ελπίδα ότι ειδικά το Συμβούλιο θα μπορέσει να μας καθησυχάσει επαρκώς σήμερα το βράδυ, ώστε αύριο η ψήφος μας να είναι θετική.
Θέλω, καταρχάς, να αναπτύξω περαιτέρω τις δύο ερωτήσεις που υποβάλαμε στο Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή. Πρέπει δε να τονίσω ότι οι ερωτήσεις υποβλήθηκαν από
παρότι είναι ευχάριστο να βλέπω το όνομά μου σε αυτές, οι ερωτήσεις υποβλήθηκαν εξ ονόματος της επιτροπής μου.
Χαίρομαι ιδιαιτέρως που διαπιστώνω ότι κατέστη εν τέλει δυνατό να παραστεί η Προεδρία. Αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι αυτό μπορεί να προκάλεσε κάποια ταλαιπωρία, αλλά η διεξαγωγή της συζήτησης αυτήν την ώρα είναι και για εμένα κάπως δύσκολη: θα μπορούσα να βρίσκομαι κάπου αλλού και να καταναλώνω σπαράγγια.
Δεδομένου ότι το Συμβούλιο άλλαξε την αρχική πρόταση της Επιτροπής όσον αφορά τον ρόλο του Κοινοβουλίου, αντικαθιστώντας τη διαδικασία διαβούλευσης με την απλή ενημέρωση του Κοινοβουλίου για οποιαδήποτε απόφαση του Συμβουλίου, είμαι υποχρεωμένος να διερωτηθώ για ποιο λόγο το Συμβούλιο προσπαθεί κατά τα φαινόμενα να αντιπαρέλθει ή να παρακάμψει το Κοινοβούλιο. Τι θα μπορούσε να έχει να κρύψει το Συμβούλιο; Ενόψει της εμφανούς απροθυμίας του να παραστεί εδώ απόψε, το περιεχόμενο της ερώτησής μας αποκτά μεγαλύτερη αξία. Επομένως, επιτρέψτε μου να υπενθυμίσω στον εκπρόσωπο του Συμβουλίου, κ. Winkler, τις συγκεκριμένες δύο ερωτήσεις μας.
Η πρώτη είναι: ποιο μηχανισμό σχεδιάζει να εφαρμόσει το Συμβούλιο για την εκ των προτέρων ενημέρωση του Κοινοβουλίου πριν εγκρίνει το Συμβούλιο κάποια θέση σχετικά με τα θεσμικά όργανα της Συνθήκης για την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα; Δεύτερον, με ποιο τρόπο και ποιος θα ενημερώνει εκ των προτέρων το Κοινοβούλιο σχετικά με τις θέσεις που θα υιοθετούν οι εκπρόσωποι της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας στα όργανα της Συνθήκης για την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα, όπως η μόνιμη ομάδα υψηλού επιπέδου; Πριν κληθεί το Κοινοβούλιο να ψηφίσει σχετικά με τη σύσταση όσον αφορά τη Συνθήκη για την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα αύριο, χρειαζόμαστε ορισμένες απαντήσεις και διαβεβαιώσεις από το Συμβούλιο ως προς τα σημεία αυτά, και θα σας ακούσουμε με μεγάλη προσοχή.
Επειδή πρόκειται για ένα πολύ σημαντικό ζήτημα, η προτεινόμενη Συνθήκη δημιουργεί ένα ενδιαφέρον προηγούμενο όσον αφορά την επέκταση του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου σε ένα περιορισμένο και πολύ συγκεκριμένο πεδίο σε τρίτες χώρες, μολονότι δύο εξ αυτών θα ενταχθούν πολύ σύντομα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και άλλες βρίσκονται σε διάφορα στάδια των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων.
Το θέμα είναι επίσης σημαντικό λόγω της σπουδαιότητας που έχει προσλάβει σήμερα το ζήτημα της ενέργειας, κυρίως ως αποτέλεσμα των γεγονότων των αρχών του έτους. Τα γεγονότα αυτά θα μπορούσαν μάλλον να παρομοιαστούν με μια πέτρα που ταράσσει τα λιμνάζοντα νερά. Η ενέργεια είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για τον τρόπο ζωής μας, είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για την ποιότητα της ζωής μας και για το βιοτικό μας επίπεδο· επομένως, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο οργανώνουμε τις αγορές μας και εγγυόμαστε την ασφάλεια του εφοδιασμού είναι εξίσου σημαντικός.
Όσον αφορά την ερώτηση προς την Επιτροπή, οφείλω να αναγνωρίσω εξαρχής το υψηλό επίπεδο συνεργασίας και τη θετική ανταπόκριση του Επιτρόπου Piebalgs στις ανησυχίες μας. Πράγματι, χαιρετίζω την ανοικτή και εποικοδομητική του προσέγγιση στις συναντήσεις μας και στην πρόσφατη επιστολή σχετικά με το ζήτημα της ενημέρωσης του Κοινοβουλίου για τις δραστηριότητες της Ενεργειακής Κοινότητας και την αντιμετώπιση ορισμένων εκ των ανησυχιών της επιτροπής μου για κοινωνικά ζητήματα και ζητήματα ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Ευελπιστώ ότι το Συμβούλιο θα αποδεχθεί την πρότασή του να ενημερώνει εκ των προτέρων το Κοινοβούλιο για τις θέσεις που προτίθεται να υποστηρίξει η Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα ενώπιον των θεσμικών οργάνων της Ενεργειακής Κοινότητας όταν πρόκειται για σημαντικά ζητήματα. Χαιρετίζω τη δήλωσή του η οποία περιλαμβάνεται στην επιστολή και σύμφωνα με την οποία θεωρεί υψίστης σημασίας την πλήρη ενημέρωση του Κοινοβουλίου για τις σημαντικές αποφάσεις που τελούν υπό έγκριση από την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα.
Σε αυτό το σημείο θα θίξω συγκεκριμένα σημεία των ερωτήσεών μας προς την Επιτροπή, τα οποία πιστεύω ότι επιβάλλεται να απαντηθούν. Στην απόφαση του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με τη σύναψη της Συνθήκης για την Ενεργειακή Κοινότητα, στο άρθρο 4, παράγραφος 3, προβλέπεται η παροχή «αμοιβαίας συνδρομής σε περίπτωση διακοπής του εφοδιασμού» – βλ. τον Τίτλο IV, Κεφάλαιο IV, της Συνθήκης. Εντούτοις, στο ίδιο άρθρο της απόφασης καθορίζεται ότι: «σε ειδικές περιπτώσεις» οι θέσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας «δύνανται να υπερβαίνουν το κοινοτικό κεκτημένο». Η πρώτη ερώτηση είναι, λοιπόν, η εξής: ποιες μπορεί να είναι αυτές οι ειδικές περιπτώσεις; Η δεύτερη ερώτηση είναι: τι σημαίνει η φράση «δύνανται να υπερβαίνουν το κοινοτικό κεκτημένο»; Καλώ τον Επίτροπο να παράσχει συγκεκριμένες απαντήσεις σε αυτά τα δύο ερωτήματα που μας απασχολούν."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, no estoy seguro de haber disfrutado jamás de tanta generosidad de tiempo de intervención en esta Cámara, pero me complace que sea en compañía de un club selecto.
El punto final –quién y cómo informará al Parlamento
de la posición adoptada por la Comisión en el seno de los distintos órganos del Tratado de la Comunidad de la Energía– ha sido contestado en términos generales en la carta del Comisario. No obstante, le invito a que comunique al Parlamento cualquier otra idea que tenga respecto a la aplicación concreta de estos compromisos.
Por último, llego al quid de la cuestión: si el Parlamento debe votar a favor de la recomendación. Permítanme decir que reconozco las buenas intenciones de la Comisión al ofrecerse a informar a mi comisión sobre el trabajo realizado en la preparación y negociación de este Tratado, aunque nuestra reacción podría haber sido más acogedora y menos suspicaz con respecto a lo que se proponía si no hubiera salido de la nada sin ningún conocimiento previo por nuestra parte.
También reconozco y agradezco los esfuerzos de la Comisión por convencer al Consejo de que sometiera el Tratado al procedimiento de consentimiento en lugar de dejar que pasara sin más. No obstante, observo que esto ocurrió después de que empezáramos a plantear preguntas sobre una posible veleidad imperial por parte de la Comisión.
Este Tratado podría enviar un mensaje importante a los países del sudeste de Europa, e incluso más allá, de que la UE es capaz de mirar hacia fuera y quiere acogerlos en la familia de naciones europeas. No estoy totalmente seguro de los aspectos positivos que obtendrá Bulgaria de esto, dada la anterior decisión de forzar el cierre prematuro de Kozloduy, una decisión que a mi parecer ya no tiene ninguna justificación técnica, pero quizás este Tratado podría ayudar a compensar ese mensaje negativo.
Concluyo expresando la esperanza de que el Consejo pueda hacer que nos sintamos suficientemente cómodos esta tarde para que mañana podamos votar a favor.
Quiero empezar explayándome sobre los temas de nuestras dos preguntas al Consejo y a la Comisión. Debo subrayar que son
preguntas, pues aunque sea gratificante ver mi nombre en ellas, las preguntas se formulan en nombre de mi comisión.
Me complace enormemente ver que la Presidencia puede estar presente después de todo. Soy consciente de que puede que esto haya causado inconvenientes, pero celebrar este debate a esta hora también me causa inconvenientes a mí: podría estar en otro lugar comiendo espárragos.
Puesto que el Consejo ha modificado la propuesta original de la Comisión respecto a la función del Parlamento Europeo, sustituyendo el procedimiento de consulta por la simple información al Parlamento de cualquier decisión del Consejo, tengo que preguntar por qué el Consejo parece querer evitar o eludir al Parlamento. ¿Qué podría tener que esconder el Consejo? En el contexto de la aparente reticencia a estar presente aquí esta noche, la sustancia de nuestra pregunta ha adquirido cierta relevancia adicional. Por lo tanto, permítanme recordar al representante del Consejo, el señor Winkler, nuestras dos preguntas concretas.
La primera es la siguiente: ¿qué mecanismo prevé el Consejo para informar
al Parlamento antes de adoptar una posición por parte del Consejo respecto a las instituciones del Tratado de la Comunidad de la Energía? En segundo lugar, ¿de qué modo y quién informará al Parlamento
de la posición adoptada por los representantes de la Comunidad Europea en los órganos del Tratado de la Comunidad de la Energía, como el Grupo Permanente de Alto Nivel? Antes de invitar a la Cámara mañana a que vote la recomendación sobre el Tratado de la Comunidad de la Energía, necesitamos respuestas y garantías del Consejo respecto a estos puntos, y yo mismo y otros escucharemos con atención.
Puesto que se trata de una cuestión muy importante, el Tratado propuesto sienta un precedente interesante al ampliar el acervo comunitario a un ámbito limitado y muy concreto para terceros países, aunque dos de ellos deberían unirse a la Unión Europea en breve y otros se encuentran en distintas fases de la negociación para la adhesión.
También es importante porque la energía se considera actualmente una cuestión crucial, en gran parte debido a los hechos de principios de año. Tales hechos tuvieron el mismo efecto que tirar una piedra grande en un estanque y generar ondas. La energía es vital para nuestro modo de vida, vital para nuestra calidad de vida y vital para nuestro nivel de vida, con lo cual el modo en el que organicemos los mercados y garanticemos la seguridad del suministro tiene la misma importancia.
Volviendo a la pregunta a la Comisión, quisiera agradecer desde el principio el alto nivel de cooperación y la respuesta positiva a nuestras preocupaciones que hemos recibido del Comisario Piebalgs. De hecho, acojo con satisfacción su enfoque abierto y constructivo en las reuniones y en la reciente carta sobre la información al Parlamento de las actividades de la Comunidad de la Energía y sobre el tratamiento de algunas de las preocupaciones de mi comisión respecto a cuestiones sociales y de derechos humanos. Confío en que el Consejo apoyará su oferta de informar al Parlamento antes de que se adopte la postura de la Comunidad Europea ante las instituciones de la Comunidad de la Energía respecto a cuestiones importantes. Acojo con satisfacción la afirmación de su carta en la que considera muy importante que el Parlamento esté plenamente informado antes de que la Comunidad de la Energía adopte importantes decisiones.
Ahora voy a tratar los puntos concretos incluidos en nuestras preguntas a la Comisión, que pienso que todavía requieren una respuesta. La decisión del Consejo sobre la conclusión del Tratado de la Comunidad de la Energía establece en el apartado 3 del artículo 4 las disposiciones sobre la «asistencia mutua en caso de trastornos», véase el capítulo IV del Título IV del Tratado. Y el mismo artículo de la decisión estipula que: «en caso de circunstancias especiales» la postura de la Comunidad Europea «podría ir más allá del acervo comunitario». Así pues, la primera pregunta es: ¿cuáles podrían ser estas circunstancias especiales? La segunda pregunta es: ¿qué quiere decir la expresión «podría ir más allá del acervo comunitario»? Pido al Comisario que concrete un poco estas dos cuestiones para nosotros."@es20
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, en ole uskoakseni koskaan aikaisemmin saanut käyttää tässä parlamentissa näin runsaasti puheaikaa, mutta olen tyytyväinen, että tämä tapahtuu valiojoukon läsnäollessa.
Komission jäsenen kirjeessä on jo vastattu yleisellä tasolla viimeiseen kysymykseen eli siihen, kuka tiedottaa parlamentille komission kannasta, jonka se on omaksunut energiayhteisön eri perustamissopimuselimissä, ja millä keinoin tämä tiedotus toteutetaan. Kehotan komission jäsentä kuitenkin jakamaan parlamentin kanssa kaikki ajatuksensa näiden toimien yksityiskohtaisesta täytäntöönpanosta.
Lopuksi pääsen asian ytimeen: pitäisikö parlamentin äänestää suosituksen puolesta? Olen tietoinen siitä, että komissio tarkoittaa hyvää tarjoutuessaan antamaan valiokunnallemme tietoa tämän perustamissopimuksen valmistelun ja neuvottelujen parissa tehdystä työstä. Olisimme kuitenkin saattaneet suhtautua ehdotukseen vastaanottavaisemmin ja vähemmän epäluuloisesti, jollei se olisi tullut kuin salama kirkkaalta taivaalta, ilman että saimme tietää asiasta etukäteen.
Tunnistan myös komission pyrkimyksen saada neuvosto käsittelemään kyseistä sopimusta hyväksyntämenettelyn kautta sen sijaan, että tämä tehtäisiin pelkällä nuijan kopautuksella ilman keskustelua. Arvostan tätä pyrkimystä. On kuitenkin pantava merkille, että komission pyrkimys ilmeni vasta sen jälkeen, kun nostimme esiin kysymyksen komission mahdollisesta imperiumin rakentamisesta.
Tällä perustamissopimuksella voitaisiin välittää tärkeä viesti Kaakkois-Euroopan maille ja jopa laajemmalle alueelle siitä, että EU kykenee katsomaan rajojensa ulkopuolelle ja haluaa sisällyttää nämä maat eurooppalaisten kansojen perheeseen. En ole täysin varma siitä, kuinka paljon tämä lohduttaa Bulgariaa, kun otamme huomioon päätöksen Kozlodyun ydinvoimalan suunniteltua aikaisemmasta sulkemisesta. Kyseinen päätös ei mielestäni ole enää teknisesti oikeutettu, mutta kenties tällä perustamissopimuksella tasapainotettaisiin tuota kielteistä sanomaa.
Päätän puheenvuoroni ilmaisemalla toiveen, että eritoten neuvosto voisi tänä iltana antaa meille riittävän vakuuden, jotta voisimme huomenna saavuttaa puoltavan äänestystuloksen.
Haluan aluksi käsitellä tarkemmin neuvostolle ja komissiolle esittämiemme kahden kysymyksen tarkoitusta. Vaikka onkin palkitsevaa nähdä oma nimensä kysymysten kohdalla, haluan korostaa, että ne ovat yhteisiä kysymyksiämme, jotka esitän ryhmäni puolesta.
Olen mielissäni siitä, että neuvoston puheenjohtaja on kuin onkin paikalla. Ymmärrän, että siitä on saattanut koitua vaivaa, mutta kyseisen keskustelun ajankohta on myös minulle hieman ongelmallinen: voisin olla toisaalla nauttimassa parsaa.
Koska neuvosto on muuttanut komission esitystä Euroopan parlamentin asemasta niin, että kuulemismenettelyn sijaan parlamentille vain tiedotetaan neuvoston päätöksistä, minun on kysyttävä, miksi vaikuttaa siltä, että neuvosto yrittää ohittaa tai kiertää parlamentin? Tänä iltana havaittavasta ilmiselvästä läsnäolohaluttomuudesta päätellen kysymyksemme sisältö on sitäkin merkittävämpi. Haluankin muistuttaa neuvoston edustajaa Winkleriä kahdesta tarkasti rajatusta kysymyksestämme.
Ensimmäinen kysymys on: mitä menettelytapaa neuvosto kaavailee parlamentille suunnattavaan ennakkotiedotukseen, ennen kuin neuvoston kanta energiayhteisön perustamista koskevan sopimuksen käsittämiin toimielimiin hyväksytään? Toiseksi: millä keinoin ja kenen toimesta parlamentille tiedotetaan ennalta niiden Euroopan yhteisön edustajien kannasta, jotka ovat jäseninä energiayhteisön perustamissopimuselimissä, esimerkiksi korkean tason pysyvässä ryhmässä? Ennen kuin parlamenttia kehotetaan huomenna äänestämään energiayhteisön perustamissopimuksesta, tarvitsemme neuvostolta vastauksia ja vakuuttavia kannanottoja näihin näkökohtiin. Minä ja muut kuuntelemme tarkkaavaisina.
Koska tämä on hyvin tärkeä kysymys, esitetty perustamissopimus toimii mielenkiintoisena esimerkkitapauksena voimassa olevan yhteisön säännöstön laajentamisessa kolmansiin maihin rajoitetulla ja erittäin tarkasti määritetyllä alalla, vaikkakin kaksi näistä maista liittynee Euroopan unioniin lähiaikoina ja muut ovat liittymisneuvottelujen eri vaiheissa.
Tämä on merkittävää myös siksi, että energiaa pidetään nykyään hyvin tärkeänä kysymyksenä, mikä johtuu paljolti tämän vuoden alussa sattuneista tapahtumista. Nuo tapahtumat ovat kuin suuren kiven heittäminen lampeen: siitä seuraa väreilyä. Energia on elintärkeää elämäntapamme, elämänlaatumme ja elintasomme kannalta. Markkinoiden järjestäminen ja toimituksen turvaaminen on siksi aivan yhtä tärkeää.
Siirtyäkseni komissiolle esitettyyn kysymykseen haluan kiittää heti aluksi komission jäsentä Piebalgsia mittavasta yhteistyöstä ja hänen myönteisestä suhtautumisestaan huolenaiheisiimme. Olen erittäin mielissäni hänen avoimesta ja rakentavasta lähestymistavastaan kokouksissa ja viimeaikaisessa kirjeessä, joka koski tiedottamista parlamentille energiayhteisöstä sekä sitä, miten valiokuntani ilmaisemia sosiaalisia ja ihmisoikeuskysymyksiin liittyviä huolia on käsitelty. Luotan siihen, että neuvosto tukee komission jäsenen tarjousta. Sen mukaan parlamentille tiedotetaan etukäteen tärkeitä kysymyksiä koskevasta Euroopan yhteisön kannasta, joka esitetään energiayhteisön elimissä. Pidän myönteisenä komission jäsenen kirjeen sisältämää huomiota, jonka mukaan hän pitää äärimmäisen tärkeänä sitä, että parlamentti pidetään etukäteen täysin ajan tasalla tärkeistä päätöksistä, jotka energiayhteisön on määrä hyväksyä.
Seuraavaksi pääsen niihin komissiolle esittämiemme kysymysten näkökohtiin, jotka jäävät mielestäni edelleen vaille vastausta. Energiayhteisön perustamissopimuksen tekemistä koskevan neuvoston päätöksen 4 artiklan 3 kohdassa vahvistetaan säännöt "keskinäiselle avunannolle katkosten aikana" – katso sopimuksen IV osaston IV luku. Päätöksen samassa artiklassa lausutaan kuitenkin, että erityisissä olosuhteissa EY:n hyväksymät kannat voivat koskea kysymyksiä, jotka jäävät yhteisön voimassa olevan säännöstön ulkopuolelle. Kysynkin ensiksi, mitä ovat nämä erityiset olosuhteet? Toinen kysymykseni on, mitä tarkoitetaan ilmauksella "voivat koskea kysymyksiä, jotka jäävät yhteisön voimassa olevan säännöstön ulkopuolelle"? Pyydän komission jäsentä valottamaan näitä kahta kysymystä."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je ne suis pas sûr d’avoir déjà pu bénéficier d’un temps de parole aussi généreux devant cette Assemblée et je suis heureux que cela se fasse en compagnie d’un auditoire de choix!
Le dernier point, concernant les moyens et les instances par lesquels le Parlement sera informé au préalable de la position adoptée par la Commission au sein des différents organes du traité instituant la Communauté de l’énergie, a été abordé, de façon générale, dans la lettre du commissaire. Cependant je l’invite à partager avec le Parlement toutes les réflexions complémentaires qu’il pourrait avoir sur l’application détaillée de ces dispositions.
J’en viens enfin au cœur du sujet. Le Parlement doit-il ou non voter en faveur de cette recommandation. Permettez-moi de reconnaître les bonnes intentions de la Commission qui a proposé d’informer ma commission des travaux entrepris pour la préparation et la négociation de ce traité. Toutefois, notre réaction aurait pu être plus chaleureuse et moins suspicieuse si cette proposition n’était pas tombée du ciel sans que nous en soyons préalablement avertis.
Je reconnais également et j’apprécie les efforts de la Commission visant à persuader le Conseil de permettre l’examen de ce traité dans le cadre de la procédure de l’avis conforme et non pas, comme cela était prévu, de le faire passer sans discussion. Je suis cependant obligé d’observer qu’elle l’a fait après que nous avons commencé à soulever des questions sur l’éventuelle propension de la Commission à jouer les bâtisseurs d’empire.
Ce traité délivre un message important aux pays de l’Europe du sud-est et même au-delà. Il montre que l’UE est capable de se tourner vers l’extérieur et qu’elle souhaite les inclure dans la famille des nations européennes. Je ne suis pas totalement certain que la Bulgarie tirera grand profit de ces dispositions étant donné la décision, prise il y a quelque temps, de pousser à la fermeture anticipée de Kozloduy - décision qui, selon moi, n’a plus aucune justification technique -, mais il se peut que ce traité permette de compenser ce message négatif.
Je conclus en exprimant le souhait que le Conseil, notamment, sera en mesure de nous réconforter suffisamment, ce soir, pour que nous puissions voter favorablement demain.
Je souhaite commencer par développer l’objet de nos deux questions au Conseil et à la Commission. Je souligne qu’il s’agit de
questions. Même s’il est gratifiant de voir qu’elles portent mon nom, elles sont posées au nom de ma commission.
Je me réjouis que la présidence puisse, malgré tout, être présente. Je reconnais qu’il peut être gênant que ce débat se tienne à cette heure et cela comporte aussi certains inconvénients pour moi. Je pourrais être ailleurs en train de manger des asperges.
Le Conseil ayant modifié la proposition initiale de la Commission en ce qui concerne le rôle du Parlement européen, passant de la procédure de consultation à une simple information du Parlement de toutes les décisions du Conseil, je suis obligé de me demander pourquoi le Conseil tente de contourner ou d’éluder le Parlement. Qu’a-t-il donc à cacher? En raison de sa réticence évidente à être présent, ici, ce soir, la substance de notre question a gagné en pertinence. Permettez-moi donc de rappeler nos deux questions spécifiques au représentant du Conseil, M. Winkler.
La première concerne la nature du mécanisme envisagé par le Conseil pour informer au préalable le Parlement de la position adoptée par le Conseil au sein des institutions du traité instituant la Communauté de l’énergie. Deuxièmement, de quelle façon et par qui le Parlement sera-t-il informé au préalable de la position prise par les représentants de la Communauté européenne dans les organes du traité instituant la Communauté de l’énergie, comme le groupe permanent à haut niveau? Avant que cette Assemblée ne soit invitée à se prononcer, demain, sur la recommandation sur le traité instituant la Communauté de l’énergie, nous avons besoin de quelques réponses et garanties du Conseil sur ces points. Avec d’autres, je les écouterai avec attention.
Comme le sujet est très important, le traité proposé crée un précédent intéressant en étendant l’acquis communautaire, dans un domaine limité et très spécifique, à des pays tiers, même si deux d’entre eux doivent rejoindre l’Union européenne très prochainement et que d’autres se situent à différents stades des négociations d’adhésion.
C’est important également, car l’énergie est généralement perçue comme un problème très important, essentiellement en raison des évènements de ce début d’année. Ces évènements, comme si l’on avait jeté un pavé dans la mare, ont provoqué une onde de choc. L’énergie est essentielle à notre mode de vie, à notre qualité de vie et à notre niveau de vie. La façon dont nous organisons les marchés et garantissons la sécurité de l’approvisionnement est donc tout aussi importante.
Pour en venir à la question à la Commission, je dois reconnaître que, depuis le début, le commissaire Piebalgs a fait preuve d’une grande volonté de coopération et a répondu de façon positive à nos préoccupations. Je me réjouis, en effet, de son approche ouverte et constructive lors de nos rencontres et dans la récente lettre, relative aux problèmes d’information du Parlement sur les activités de la Communauté de l’énergie, qui aborde certaines préoccupations de ma commission concernant les droits sociaux et les droits de l’homme. Je suis certain que le Conseil respectera sa proposition d’informer à l’avance le Parlement de la position que la Communauté européenne adoptera au sein des organes de la Communauté de l’énergie sur des sujets importants. Je me réjouis qu’il affirme, dans sa lettre, qu’il est de la plus haute importance que le Parlement soit pleinement informé, par avance, des décisions importantes qui seront adoptées par la Communauté de l’énergie.
J’en viens maintenant aux points spécifiques contenus dans nos questions à la Commission, qui nécessitent, selon moi, une réponse. La décision du Conseil sur la conclusion du traité instituant la Communauté de l’énergie prévoit dans son article 4, paragraphe 3, des dispositions instituant une «assistance mutuelle en cas de perturbation» (cf. titre IV, chapitre IV, du traité). Pourtant, le même article de la décision dispose qu’«en cas de circonstances particulières», les positions adoptées par la Communauté de l’énergie «peuvent aller au-delà de l’acquis communautaire». La première question est donc: en quoi consistent ces circonstances particulières? La deuxième question est: qu’entend-on par «peuvent aller au-delà de l’acquis communautaire»? Je demande au commissaire d’étoffer un peu, pour nous, ces deux questions."@fr8
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, non mi pare di avere mai goduto prima d’ora di una simile disponibilità di tempo in quest’Aula, ma sono lieto di trovarmi in compagnia di un club selezionato!
Sul punto finale – in che modo e da chi verrà informato il Parlamento
della posizione assunta dalla Commissione negli organi del trattato che istituisce la Comunità dell’energia – il Commissario ha già fornito una risposta in termini generali nella sua lettera. Tuttavia, lo invito a condividere con il Parlamento eventuali ulteriori riflessioni sull’attuazione dettagliata di questi impegni.
Infine, vengo al nocciolo della questione: l’opportunità che il Parlamento voti a favore della raccomandazione. Riconosco le buone intenzioni della Commissione nell’offrirsi di ragguagliare la mia commissione in merito al lavoro svolto nella preparazione e nella negoziazione del trattato, anche se la nostra reazione avrebbe potuto essere più favorevole e meno sospettosa se la proposta non fosse giunta inaspettata, senza che ne sapessimo nulla.
Inoltre, riconosco e apprezzo i tentativi della Commissione di persuadere il Consiglio a seguire la procedura del parere conforme per il trattato, invece di darlo per approvato, come invece è stato. Tuttavia, sono costretto a rilevare che è stato solo dopo che abbiamo cominciato a sollevare questioni in merito a un possibile atteggiamento dittatoriale della Commissione.
Questo trattato potrebbe fornire un messaggio importante ai paesi dell’Europa sudorientale, e anche oltre, sul fatto che l’Unione europea è in grado di guardare al di là dei suoi confini e intende accoglierli nella famiglia delle nazioni europee. Non sono del tutto sicuro di quanto conforto ne trarrà la Bulgaria, data la precedente decisione di costringerla alla chiusura anticipata di Kozloduy – una decisione che a mio parere non ha più alcuna giustificazione tecnica, ma forse il trattato potrebbe contribuire a compensare quel messaggio negativo.
Chiudo esprimendo la speranza che il Consiglio in particolare sarà in grado questa sera di fornirci rassicurazioni sufficienti, cosicché possiamo procedere domani a una votazione favorevole.
Desidero innanzi tutto trattare l’oggetto delle nostre due interrogazioni al Consiglio e alla Commissione. Tengo a sottolineare che si tratta delle
interrogazioni; benché sia gratificante vedere che recano il mio nome, le interrogazioni sono a nome della mia commissione.
Mi fa molto piacere vedere che la Presidenza ha potuto comunque essere presente. Mi rendo conto che è un orario un po’ scomodo, ma tenere questa discussione a quest’ora ha creato qualche problema anche a me: potrei essere altrove, a consumare una cena a base di asparagi.
Poiché il Consiglio ha modificato la proposta originaria della Commissione per quanto concerne il ruolo del Parlamento europeo, dalla procedura di consultazione alla semplice informazione del Parlamento in merito alle decisioni del Consiglio, mi trovo costretto a chiedere per quale motivo pare che il Consiglio stia tentando di aggirare o eludere il Parlamento. Che cosa potrebbe avere da nascondere? Alla luce della sua evidente riluttanza a presentarsi in Aula questa sera, la sostanza della nostra interrogazione ha acquisito maggiore rilevanza. Quindi, permettetemi di ricordare al rappresentante del Consiglio, il Presidente Winkler, le nostre due specifiche interrogazioni.
La prima è la seguente: a quali misure sta pensando il Consiglio, per informare il Parlamento
prima dell’adozione di una sua posizione in merito alle istituzioni del trattato che istituisce la Comunità dell’energia? In secondo luogo, in che modo e per mezzo di chi verrà informato il Parlamento
della posizione presa dai rappresentanti della Comunità europea negli organi previsti dal trattato che istituisce la Comunità dell’energia, come il Gruppo permanente ad alto livello? Prima che l’Assemblea sia invitata a votare domani sulla raccomandazione concernente il trattato che istituisce la Comunità dell’energia, abbiamo bisogno di risposte e di rassicurazioni del Consiglio su questi punti, che io e altri ascolteremo con attenzione.
Poiché si tratta di una questione molto importante, il trattato proposto crea un precedente interessante nell’estendere l’
comunitario in un campo limitato e molto specifico a paesi terzi, quantunque due di essi debbano aderire all’Unione europea molto presto e altri si trovino in fasi diverse dei negoziati per l’adesione.
E’ importante anche perché attualmente l’energia è percepita come una questione di grande rilevanza, in gran parte in conseguenza degli eventi verificatisi all’inizio dell’anno, che hanno avuto pressappoco l’effetto prodotto dal lancio di un grosso sasso in uno stagno, creando una serie di onde concentriche. L’energia è vitale per il nostro modo di vivere, vitale per la qualità della nostra vita e vitale per il nostro tenore di vita e pertanto è ugualmente importante il modo in cui organizziamo i mercati e salvaguardiamo la sicurezza degli approvvigionamenti.
Passando all’interrogazione alla Commissione, desidero innanzi tutto dare atto dell’elevato livello di collaborazione mostrato dal Commissario Piebalgs e della sua risposta positiva alle nostre preoccupazioni. Apprezzo veramente il suo approccio aperto e costruttivo nelle riunioni e nella recente lettera in merito alle questioni dell’informazione al Parlamento sulle attività della Comunità dell’energia e ad alcuni dei timori della mia commissione in materia di diritti sociali e umani. Confido che il Consiglio appoggi la sua proposta di informare il Parlamento in anticipo sulla posizione che la Comunità europea intende assumere dinanzi alle istituzioni della Comunità dell’energia su questioni importanti. Apprezzo il fatto che nella sua lettera affermi di considerare di primaria importanza che il Parlamento venga informato in modo esauriente e in anticipo in merito a importanti decisioni da adottare nella Comunità dell’energia.
Ma ora veniamo ai punti specifici contenuti nella nostra interrogazione alla Commissione, che a mio parere necessitano ancora di una risposta. La decisione del Consiglio sulla conclusione del trattato che istituisce la Comunità dell’energia stabilisce all’articolo 4, paragrafo 3, le disposizioni che disciplinano la prestazione di “mutua assistenza in caso di perturbazioni” (si veda il titolo IV, capo IV del trattato). Tuttavia, lo stesso articolo della decisione stabilisce che “in caso di circostanze particolari” la posizione della Comunità europea “può trascendere l’
comunitario”. Dunque, la prima domanda è questa: quali potrebbero essere queste “circostanze particolari”? E la seconda è: che cosa s’intende con l’espressione “trascendere l’
comunitario”? Chiedo quindi al Commissario di fornirci qualche delucidazione in merito a questi due aspetti."@it12
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@lt14
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@lv13
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik geloof niet dat ik hier ooit zulke zeeën aan spreektijd tot mijn beschikking heb gehad, maar ik ben verheugd dat het ten overstaan van zo’n select gezelschap is.
Het laatste punt - op welke wijze en door wie zal het Parlement vooraf worden ingelicht over de standpunten die ingenomen worden door de Commissie in de organen van het Energiegemeenschapsverdrag - is in algemene bewoordingen beantwoord in de brief van de commissaris. Ik wil hem echter oproepen om het Parlement deelgenoot te maken van enige verdere gedachten over de precieze manier waarop invulling gegeven zal worden aan deze beloften.
Tot slot nu de kernvraag van deze zaak: moet het Parlement, ja ofte nee, vóór de aanbeveling stemmen? Ik zie in dat de Commissie goede bedoelingen heeft, wat blijkt uit haar aanbod onze commissie in te lichten over de werkzaamheden rond de voorbereidingen en de onderhandelingen over dit verdrag. Onze reactie hierop had wel wat warmer en minder achterdochtig mogen zijn, ware het niet dat het voor ons allemaal uit de lucht kwam vallen, aangezien wij vooraf in het geheel niet waren ingelicht.
Ook kan ik zien, en dat waardeer ik, dat de Commissie zich heeft ingespannen om de Raad ertoe te bewegen voor dit verdrag de weg van de instemmingsprocedure te bewandelen, en de tekst er niet als het ware zonder formele discussie door te sluizen. Ik moet er echter wel bij zeggen dat dit pas op gang kwam toen wij vraagtekens begonnen te zetten bij een mogelijk te machtige positie van de Commissie.
Met dit verdrag kunnen we een duidelijke boodschap overbrengen aan de landen van Zuidoost-Europa en zelfs daarbuiten, die inhoudt dat de EU in staat is over haar eigen grenzen heen te kijken en hen op te nemen in de familie van Europese naties. Ik weet niet hoeveel troost Bulgarije hieruit zal weten te putten, gezien de eerdere beslissing om de vervroegde sluiting van Kozloduy af te dwingen - een besluit waarvoor in mijn ogen geen enkele technische rechtvaardiging meer bestaat, maar misschien kan dit verdrag dat negatieve bericht een beetje compenseren.
Ter afsluiting wil ik de hoop uitspreken dat in het bijzonder de Raad ons vanavond voldoende gerust zal weten te stellen, zodat we morgen ten faveure van het geheel zullen kunnen stemmen.
Om te beginnen zou ik graag willen ingaan op de onderwerpen van onze twee vragen aan de Raad en de Commissie. Ik wil daarbij benadrukken dat het
vragen zijn - het is vleiend om mijn naam erop te zien staan, maar het zijn vragen namens mijn commissie.
Ik ben zeer verheugd dat het voorzitterschap uiteindelijk toch hier aanwezig kan zijn. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat het allicht wat ongemakken heeft opgeleverd, maar ook voor mij gaat het houden van dit debat op dit uur met het nodige ongemak gepaard: ik had namelijk ergens anders asperges kunnen zitten eten.
Gezien het feit dat de Raad het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel wat betreft de rol van het Parlement heeft gewijzigd en de raadplegingsprocedure heeft vervangen door een procedure waarbij het Parlement alleen nog maar ingelicht hoeft te worden over alle Raadsbesluiten, moet ik wel de vraag stellen waarom de Raad - kennelijk - probeert het Parlement te mijden of er buiten te houden. Wat heeft de Raad te verbergen? Gezien de klaarblijkelijke tegenzin om vanavond hier naartoe te komen is dit al helemaal een relevante vraag. Daarom zou ik graag de vertegenwoordiger van de Raad, de heer Winkler, nog eens onze twee specifieke vragen in herinnering willen roepen.
De eerste vraag luidt: welk mechanisme heeft de Raad in gedachten als het gaat om het vooraf inlichten van het Parlement, dat wil zeggen vóórdat de Raad een standpunt inneemt inzake de instellingen van het Energiegemeenschapsverdrag? Ten tweede, op welke wijze en door wie zal het Parlement vooraf worden ingelicht over de standpunten die worden ingenomen door vertegenwoordigers van de Europese Gemeenschap in de organen van het Energiegemeenschapsverdrag
zoals de permanente groep op hoog niveau? Voordat het Parlement morgen zal worden gevraagd te stemmen over de aanbeveling inzake het Energiegemeenschapsverdrag, hebben wij wat deze vragen betreft van de kant van de Raad nog enige antwoorden en garanties nodig. Wij zullen dan ook zeer goed naar u luisteren.
Aangezien dit een uitermate belangrijke aangelegenheid is, creëert het voorgestelde verdrag een interessant precedent, door in een beperkt en zeer specifiek aandachtsgebied de werking van het
uit te breiden tot derde landen, ook al staan twee van hen klaar om zeer binnenkort tot de EU toe te treden en bevinden andere zich in verschillende stadia van toetredingsonderhandelingen.
De kwestie is eveneens belangwekkend omdat energie op dit moment wordt gezien als een uitermate belangrijk onderwerp, hoofdzakelijk als gevolg van de gebeurtenissen van begin dit jaar. Deze gebeurtenissen leken een beetje op het gooien van een grote steen in een vijver, met de nodige rimpelingen in het water tot gevolg. Energie is van vitaal belang voor onze levenswijze, van vitaal belang voor onze levenskwaliteit en van vitaal belang voor onze levensstandaard. De manier waarop we onze markten organiseren en de continuïteit van de energietoevoer waarborgen, is dus evenzeer van vitaal belang.
Ik ga nu over tot de vraag aan de Commissie en wil daarbij allereerst gewag maken van de grote samenwerkingsbereidheid en de positieve reacties op onze zorgen van commissaris Piebalgs. Ik wil dan ook mijn grote waardering uitspreken voor zijn open en opbouwende houding tijdens onze ontmoetingen en in zijn recente brief wat betreft het inlichten van het Parlement over de activiteiten van de Energiegemeenschap, alsook voor het oppakken van de zorgen van mijn commissie omtrent sociale en mensenrechtenkwesties. Ik vertrouw erop dat de Raad zijn aanbod gestand zal doen om het Parlement over belangwekkende zaken in te lichten voordat de Europese Gemeenschap in de instellingen van de Energiegemeenschap standpunten inneemt. Ik ben zeer ingenomen met de passage in de brief van de commissaris waarin hij stelt het van kardinaal belang te vinden dat het Parlement volledig wordt ingelicht alvorens de Energiegemeenschap overgaat tot het nemen van belangrijke besluiten.
Dan kom ik nu op de specifieke punten van de vragen die wij aan de Commissie hebben gesteld. Mij dunkt dat daarop nog een antwoord verschuldigd is. Artikel 4, lid 3 van het besluit van de Raad inzake het sluiten van het Energiegemeenschapsverdrag bevat bepalingen voor het verlenen van “onderlinge bijstand bij verstoringen” - zie Titel IV, Hoofdstuk IV van het verdrag. Tegelijkertijd echter staat er in hetzelfde artikel dat “in bijzondere omstandigheden” het standpunt van de Europese Gemeenschap “verder kan gaan dan het communautair acquis”. De eerste vraag luidt dus: wat zijn deze “bijzondere omstandigheden”? De tweede vraag is: wat wordt bedoeld met de zinsnede “verder kan gaan dan het communautair acquis”? Ik wil de commissaris vragen hier wat meer duidelijkheid in te scheppen."@nl3
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, parece-me que é a primeira vez, neste Parlamento, que disponho de tanto tempo de palavra, mas apraz-me sumamente que isso aconteça na companhia de tão selecto grupo!
A última pergunta – de que forma e por quem será o Parlamento informado
da posição tomada pela Comissão no âmbito dos diversos órgãos do Tratado da Comunidade da Energia – já recebeu uma resposta geral na carta do Comissário. Apesar disso, convido-o a partilhar com o Parlamento mais algumas ideias que possa ter tido sobre a concretização pormenorizada dessas medidas.
Chego, finalmente, ao cerne da questão: deverá o Parlamento votar a favor da recomendação? Permitam-me que comece por dizer que reconheço as boas intenções da Comissão quando se oferece para informar a minha comissão sobre o trabalho realizado para preparar e negociar este Tratado, se bem que a nossa reacção pudesse ter sido mais calorosa e menos desconfiada quanto ao que estava sobre a mesa se não tivesse surgido do nada, sem qualquer conhecimento nosso do que estava a passar-se.
Reconheço também, e aprecio, os esforços da Comissão para convencer o Conselho a fazer aprovar o Tratado através do processo de parecer favorável em lugar de, como estava a acontecer, o fazer aprovar por consenso geral, sem discussão. Devo, contudo, fazer notar que isso só se verificou depois de começarmos a levantar dúvidas quanto a uma eventual concentração de poderes por parte da Comissão.
O presente Tratado pode enviar uma importante mensagem aos países da Europa do Sudeste, e mais longe até, fazendo-os compreender que a UE é capaz de olhar para o exterior e pretende inclui-los na família das nações europeias. Não sei exactamente que consolo tirará daí a Bulgária, dada a decisão anterior de obrigar ao encerramento antecipado da central de Kozloduy – decisão essa que, em meu entender, não se justifica já do ponto de vista técnico, mas talvez o Tratado possa ajudar a apagar essa mensagem negativa.
Termino, expressando a esperança de que o Conselho, em particular, possa transmitir-nos esta noite ânimo suficiente para, amanhã, votarmos a favor da proposta.
Gostaria de começar por desenvolver as nossas duas perguntas ao Conselho e à Comissão. Saliento que se trata das
perguntas – embora seja gratificante ver o meu nome nas mesmas, as perguntas são apresentadas em nome da minha comissão.
É com satisfação que verifico que a Presidência conseguiu, afinal, estar presente. Reconheço que o debate talvez não decorra na melhor altura, mas também eu sou vítima deste horário: podia estar noutro local a deliciar-me com espargos.
O Conselho modificou a proposta inicial da Comissão no que respeita ao papel do Parlamento Europeu: em vez do processo de consulta, o Parlamento passa, simplesmente, a ser informado de qualquer decisão do Conselho. Assim, devo perguntar por que motivo parece o Conselho estar a tentar ultrapassar ou evitar o Parlamento. Terá alguma coisa a esconder? Tendo em conta a aparente relutância em estar presente esta noite, a substância da nossa pergunta ganha consistência. Consequentemente, permitam-me recordar ao representante do Conselho, o Senhor Ministro Hans Winkler, as nossas duas perguntas.
A primeira é: que mecanismo prevê o Conselho para uma informação do Parlamento antes da adopção de uma posição do Conselho perante as instituições do Tratado da Comunidade da Energia? Em segundo lugar, como e por quem será o Parlamento informado
da posição tomada pelos representantes da Comunidade Europeia nos órgãos do Tratado da Comunidade da Energia, como o Grupo permanente de alto nível? Antes de a Assembleia ser convidada a votar, amanhã, a recomendação sobre o Tratado que institui a Comunidade da Energia, queremos respostas e garantias do Conselho sobre esses pontos e, juntamente com outros colegas, escutarei atentamente o que tem para nos dizer.
Porque se trata de matéria da maior importância, este Tratado cria um precedente interessante, ao alargar o acervo comunitário, num domínio limitado e muito específico, a países terceiros, embora dois deles devam aderir à União Europeia a breve trecho e outros se encontrem em diversos estádios das negociações de adesão.
Assume importância também porque o tema da energia é, actualmente, fulcral, em grande parte na sequência dos acontecimentos do início do ano. Tais acontecimentos podem ser comparados a uma pedra que foi atirada a uma lagoa, provocando agitação. A energia é fundamental para o nosso modo de vida, para a nossa qualidade de vida e para os nossos padrões de vida, pelo que a forma como organizamos os mercados e garantimos a segurança de fornecimento não pode ser negligenciada.
Voltando à pergunta à Comissão, gostaria que ficasse, desde já, registado o alto nível de cooperação e a resposta positiva dada pelo Senhor Comissário Andris Piebalgs às nossas preocupações. Com efeito, saúdo a abordagem aberta e construtiva que demonstrou em reuniões e numa carta recente relativamente à questão da informação do Parlamento sobre as actividades da Comunidade da Energia e como reacção a algumas das preocupações da minha comissão quanto a direitos humanos e sociais. Confio que o Conselho aceite a sua sugestão de informar antecipadamente o Parlamento da posição a tomar pela Comunidade Europeia perante as instituições da Comunidade da Energia em assuntos relevantes. Acolho com satisfação a parte dessa carta em que afirma considerar da maior importância que o Parlamento seja plena e previamente informado de decisões de vulto a adoptar pela Comunidade da Energia.
Passo agora aos aspectos específicos contidos nas nossas perguntas à Comissão, que considero continuarem a exigir resposta. A decisão do Conselho relativa à conclusão do Tratado que institui a Comunidade da Energia estabelece, no nº3 do artigo 4º, as disposições que regulam a prestação de "assistência mútua em caso de perturbação" – veja-se o Capítulo IV do Título IV do Tratado. Contudo, o mesmo artigo da decisão estabelece que, "em caso de circunstâncias especiais," as posições da CE "podem ir além do acervo comunitário". A primeira pergunta é, então, a seguinte: o que poderiam ser consideradas circunstâncias especiais? A segunda pergunta é: o que se pretende dizer com a frase "podem ir além do acervo comunitário"? Solicito ao Senhor Comissário que esclareça estas duas questões."@pt17
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@sk18
"Mr President, I am not sure I have ever enjoyed such largesse of time before in this House, but I am glad it is in the company of a select club!
The final point – by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the Commission within the various organs of the Energy Community Treaty – has been answered in general terms in the Commissioner’s letter. However, I invite him to share any further thoughts he may have with Parliament on detailed implementation of these undertakings.
Finally, I come to the crux of the matter: whether Parliament should vote for the recommendation. Let me say that I recognise the good intention of the Commission in offering to brief my committee about the work undertaken in the preparation and negotiation of this Treaty, although our reaction might have been more welcoming and less suspicious of what was being proposed had it not come out of the blue without any prior knowledge on our part.
I also recognise and appreciate the Commission’s efforts to persuade the Council to take this Treaty down the assent procedure route instead of, as it were, slipping it through on the nod. However, I am bound to observe that this was after we began raising questions about possible empire-building by the Commission.
This Treaty could provide an important message to the countries of south-east Europe, and even beyond, that the EU is capable of being outward-looking and wants to embrace them in the family of European nations. I am not entirely sure how much comfort Bulgaria will derive from this, given the earlier decision to force early closure of Kozloduy – a decision which no longer has any technical justification in my view, but maybe this Treaty could help offset that negative message.
I close by expressing the hope that the Council in particular will be able to give us sufficient comfort this evening so that we can proceed to a favourable vote tomorrow.
I wish to begin by expanding on the objects of our two questions to the Council and to the Commission. I should emphasise that they are
questions – although it is gratifying to see my name on them, the questions are on behalf of my committee.
I am very pleased to see that the Presidency is able to be present after all. I appreciate that this may have caused inconvenience, but holding this debate at this time presents some inconvenience to me as well: I could be elsewhere consuming asparagus.
Because the Council has changed the original Commission proposal with regard to the role of the European Parliament from the consultation procedure to simply informing Parliament of any decision of the Council, I am bound to ask why the Council appears to be trying to bypass or circumvent Parliament. What could the Council have to hide? In the context of the apparent reluctance to be present here tonight, the substance of our question has added relevance. Therefore, allow me to remind the Council representative, Mr Winkler, of our two specific questions.
The first is: what mechanism would the Council envisage for
informing of Parliament prior to the adoption of a position by the Council with regard to the Energy Community Treaty institutions? Secondly, by what means and by whom will Parliament be informed
of the position taken by the representatives of the European Community in the organs of the Energy Community Treaty, such as the Permanent High Level Group? Before the House is invited to vote on the recommendation on the Energy Community Treaty tomorrow, we need some answers and assurances from the Council on these points, and I and others will be listening carefully.
Because this is a very important matter, the proposed Treaty creates an interesting precedent in extending the
in a limited and very specific field to third countries, albeit that two of them should be joining the European Union very shortly or others are in various stages of negotiating accession.
It is also important because energy is currently perceived as a very important issue, largely as a result of events at the beginning of this year. Those events were rather like throwing a large stone into a pond, creating ripples. Energy is vital to our way of life, vital to our quality of life and vital to our standard of living, so how we organise markets and safeguard security of supply is equally important.
Turning to the question to the Commission, I should like to acknowledge from the outset the high level of cooperation and the positive response to our concerns that we have received from Commissioner Piebalgs. Indeed, I welcome his open and constructive approach in meetings and in the recent letter with regard to the issues of informing Parliament about the activities of the Energy Community and addressing some of the concerns of my committee over social and human rights issues. I trust that the Council will endorse his offer to inform Parliament in advance of the European Community position to be taken before the institutions of the Energy Community on important issues. I welcome his letter’s assertion that he considers it of the utmost importance that Parliament is fully informed in advance of important decisions to be adopted by the Energy Community.
Now I come to the specific points contained in our questions to the Commission, which I feel still require a response. The Council decision on the conclusion of the Energy Community Treaty lays down in its Article 4(3) the provisions for providing ‘mutual assistance in the event of disruption’ – see the Treaty’s Title IV, Chapter IV. Yet the same article of the decision stipulates that: ‘in the event of special circumstances’ the position of the European Community ‘may go beyond the
’. So the first question is: what might these special circumstances be? The second question is: what is meant by the phrase, it ‘may go beyond the
’? I ask the Commissioner to put some flesh on those two issues for us."@sl19
"Herr talman! Jag är inte säker på om jag någonsin har åtnjutit så generöst med tid tidigare i parlamentet och jag är glad över att det är i sällskap av en utvald skara!
Den slutliga punkten som gäller hur och av vem parlamentet på förhand kommer att informeras om kommissionens ståndpunkt inom energigemenskapens olika organ, har generellt sett besvarats av kommissionsledamotens skrivelse. Jag inbjuder honom emellertid att dela med sig av eventuella ytterligare funderingar till parlamentet när det gäller ett utförligt genomförande av dessa åtaganden.
Slutligen har jag kommit till den springande punkten: Bör parlamentet rösta för rekommendationen eller inte? Låt mig säga att jag värdesätter kommissionens goda avsikter att erbjuda mitt utskott kortfattad information om arbetet under förberedelserna och förhandlingarna inför detta fördrag, även om vår reaktion på förslaget kanske hade varit mer välkomnande och mindre misstänksam om det inte hade dykt upp ur tomma intet utan någon förhandskännedom från vår sida.
Jag värdesätter och uppskattar kommissionens ansträngningar att övertyga rådet att anta detta fördrag enligt samtyckesförfarandet och inte, som var fallet, låta det slippa igenom utan formaliteter. Jag tvingas emellertid notera att detta hände efter att vi började ställa frågor om ett möjligt imperiebyggande från kommissionens sida.
Fördraget skulle kunna sända ett viktigt meddelande till länderna i Sydösteuropa och även utanför, om att EU kan vara utåtriktat och vill ta emot dem i sin familj av europeiska nationer. Jag är inte helt säker på hur stor tröst Bulgarien kan få av detta med tanke på det tidigare beslutet att tvinga fram en tidigare nedläggning av Kozloduj, ett beslut som enligt min mening inte längre har något teknisk berättigande, men kanske kan detta fördrag vara en motvikt till detta negativa budskap.
Jag avslutar med att uttrycka min förhoppning att framför allt rådet kommer att kunna stilla vår oro i kväll så att vi kan rösta ja i morgon.
Jag vill börja med att gå närmare in på ämnena för våra två frågor till rådet och till kommissionen. Jag bör betona att det är
frågor. Även om det är tillfredsställande att se att de står i mitt namn, så är frågorna på vägnar av mitt utskott.
Jag är mycket glad över att ordförandeskapet har möjlighet att vara närvarande trots allt. Jag förstår att detta kan ha orsakat besvär, men att hålla denna debatt vid denna tid innebär en del besvär även för mig. Jag skulle kunna vara någon annanstans och äta sparris.
Eftersom rådet har ändrat kommissionens ursprungliga förslag när det gäller Europaparlamentets roll från att delta i ett samrådsförfarande till att endast informeras om varje beslut som rådet fattar, måste jag fråga varför rådet tycks försöka kringgå och undvika parlamentet. Vad kan rådet ha att dölja? Efter den uppenbara motviljan mot att vara närvarande här i kväll har innebörden i vår fråga fått ytterligare betydelse. Tillåt mig därför att påminna rådets företrädare, Hans Winkler, om våra två speciella frågor.
Den första lyder: Vilken mekanism har rådet tänkt använda för att förhandsinformera parlamentet innan rådet antar en ståndpunkt när det gäller de institutioner som ska inrättas genom fördraget om en energigemenskap? Den andra frågan lyder: Hur och av vem kommer parlamentet att på förhand informeras om Europeiska gemenskapens företrädares hållning och ståndpunkter inom energigemenskapens organ, exempelvis inom den ständiga högnivågruppen? Innan parlamentet inbjuds till omröstningen om fördraget om en energigemenskap i morgon behöver vi en del svar och garantier från rådet på dessa punkter. Jag själv och andra kommer att lyssna noggrant.
Eftersom detta är en mycket viktig fråga skapar det föreslagna fördraget ett intressant prejudikat då man utvidgar gemenskapens regelverk inom ett begränsat och mycket specifikt område för tredjeländer, även om två av dem förmodligen kommer att ansluta sig till EU inom kort och andra befinner sig i olika stadier av anslutningsförhandlingarna.
Det är också viktigt eftersom energi för närvarande uppfattas som en mycket viktig fråga, vilket till största delen beror på de händelser som inträffade i början av året. Dessa händelser var snarare som att kasta en stor sten i en damm och skapa vågor på vattnet. Energi är nödvändigt för vår livsstil, vår livskvalitet och vår levnadsstandard. Därför är vår organisation av marknaderna och en trygg energiförsörjning lika viktiga.
När det sedan gäller frågan till kommissionen skulle jag inledningsvis vilja tacka för den höga samarbetsnivån och de positiva reaktionerna från kommissionsledamot Andris Piebalgs på våra farhågor. Jag välkomnar verkligen hans öppna och konstruktiva inställning under våra möten och i den senaste skrivelsen om att informera parlamentet om energigemenskapens arbete, samt att han tog upp delar av det som engagerar mitt utskott när det gäller sociala frågor och frågor om mänskliga rättigheter. Jag litar på att rådet kommer att stödja hans erbjudande om att parlamentet ska informeras i förväg om vilken ståndpunkt som Europeiska gemenskapen kommer att anta inför energigemenskapens institutioner om viktiga frågor. Jag välkomnar att han i sin skrivelse anser det vara av yttersta vikt att parlamentet är fullständigt informerat i förväg om viktiga beslut som ska antas av energigemenskapen.
Nu kommer jag till de specifika punkter i våra frågor till kommissionen som jag anser fortfarande kräver ett svar. I artikel 4.3 i rådets beslut om fördraget om en energigemenskap fastställs bestämmelserna om att ge ”ömsesidigt bistånd vid avbrott”, se avdelning IV, kapitel IV i fördraget. Trots detta fastställs det i samma artikel i beslutet att kommissionens ståndpunkt under särskilda omständigheter ”kan gå utöver gemenskapens regelverk”. Den första frågan är vilka dessa särskilda omständigheter kan vara? Den andra frågan är vad som avses med meningen ”kan gå utöver gemenskapens regelverk”? Jag ber kommissionsledamoten att utförligare beskriva de två frågorna för oss."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Giles Chichester (PPE-DE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"acquis"12
"acquis communautaire"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,3,2,13,4
"ex ante"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4,20,12
"in the event of special circumstances"2
"may go beyond the acquis communautaire"2
"mutual assistance in the event of disruption"2
"nossas"17
"nostre"12
"our"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"rapporteur and author"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"våra"21
"εμάς"10
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples