Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-229"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.7.3-229"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, my group welcomes this report, mainly because of two key points that it contains. Firstly, it makes the case for a wider IGC than the three so-called Amsterdam left-overs. Although those are key points, crucial points, we believe that it is right that the IGC ranges beyond just those three issues.
This view is indeed gaining ground, thanks partly to the Dehaene report and the Commission’s own proposals – and I pay tribute to Mr Barnier who is here with us – but it is also gaining ground and rightly so among the national governments. Nobody wants an all encompassing IGC dealing with every subject facing the Union in the Maastricht style, but there is a strong case to add to the agenda half a dozen key subjects which must be resolved if our Union is to work efficiently, transparently and democratically and is to be capable of facing up to having nearly 30 Member States.
The second reason is that it makes the case for more democratic procedures. Amsterdam was already better than previous IGCs to a limited degree, in that it was prepared by a reflection group in which Parliament participated and which published its full report, in that every proposal tabled in that IGC was published and put into the public domain and in that Parliament was able to send two representatives to at least some of the meetings.
The time has now come, though, to be able to send Parliamentary representatives to all the meetings and to participate in the IGC on the same basis as the Commission, as a Community institution, to make our case, to advocate our proposals and at times to argue against the proposals made by others.
Mr President, my group has tabled only two amendments and two requests for a split vote on this report. That is because in the main we think this report strikes the right balance between ambition and realism. One amendment seeks to re-establish in the report a request that the IGC should re-examine the issue of flexible cooperation. It is unthinkable that we should move to nearly 30 Member States without the IGC re-examining that question. With nearly thirty Member States we need a clause on flexible cooperation that is actually workable.
The second amendment looks at the issue of having two parts to the Treaty: the constitutional part, looking at the main principles and the institutional provisions, and the small print dealing with policies. This idea has widespread support. Views differ, however, as to whether that second part should be amendable by a simplified procedure. Our amendments suggest that sections of that second part should be amendable by a simplified procedure – maybe not all of it, that may cause insurmountable problems, but at least part of it. There are many cases in the existing Treaties – different protocols, parts of the European Coal and Steel Treaty for instance – that are amendable by simplified procedure and the IGC should look constructively at this.
Mr President, the Treaties are the European Union’s constitution. They need to be made clearer, more transparent, more effective and more democratic. The IGC must take on board that challenge."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples