Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-224"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.7.3-224"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, here we are on the eve of a new round of reforms and the umpteenth Intergovernmental Conference. Unlike the Millennium Round, we have still not managed to stimulate public opinion, non-governmental organisations or even the MEPs on this subject, which remains fairly far removed from the thoughts of all of us. However, we have an opportunity and we must make the most of it. On the other hand – as emphasised in the report by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen, whom I would like to thank here – we are talking about how to turn this muddled machine into a modern democracy, how rights, policies and decisions can be made transparent to everyone and how this European home can become more open and welcoming.
With this resolution, the European Parliament has decided to embark upon the process of revision and the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference. Frankly, I do not know if we shall succeed. Parliament is in a position of objective weakness in the dialogue with the governments, and it is therefore not very easy. My group considers, however, that some things must be explained more clearly and has tabled some amendments to this end, which I hope will arouse the interest of this House.
The governments must not be the European Parliament’s only partners in dialogue – as they often are for the Commission – and Parliament must therefore try to open and introduce a perspective of a, shall we say, constitutional nature, so that the instruments for an efficient democracy are clear for all and not just for a few specialists. As for the method, we do not believe that sending two observers is sufficient: two MEPs who observe a diplomatic conference and who, furthermore, are bound by an obligation of discretion, cannot be anything other than an alibi displaying weakness and modest ambitions. If the objective is to start the intergovernmental process, we must move towards a political agreement on the contents of the reform between Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
Secondly, the agenda must not be restricted to technical points and to the issues not settled in Amsterdam. Codecision with the European Parliament and majority voting must become the rule, even in difficult sectors such as agriculture and taxation. The citizens must emerge from the fog they now find themselves in. Besides, I wonder, why mention specifically in the report the need to keep unanimous voting? There is no need. What we want today is greater democracy, greater codecision and majority voting in the Council. There is no point in reassuring the governments: they do not need to be reassured because it is they who decide in the end.
Finally, Mr President, even if today talking about defence is very fashionable, my group, albeit with its differing opinions, is convinced that discussing security in an exclusively military context is not positive. At the Intergovernmental Conference, if discussions are limited to the best way to integrate fifteen armies, then they will hold very limited interest. We think that we will only be able to talk about security and defence within the context of a general communitisation and democratisation of foreign policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples