Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.6.3-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, today’s debate has a special political significance. We are not discussing the substance of the agenda, that is the items already included or those that we all wish to see included. We are stating the political position of the European Parliament on convening the Intergovernmental Conference. There is nothing new here, apart from one aspect: the fact that with this opinion – assuming it is approved tomorrow – the European Parliament is adopting a positive strategy to assist in widening the IGC agenda. This also demonstrates its willingness to contribute, by means of its two representatives and its President, to reaching a more satisfactory final solution to this revision of the Treaty. This opinion is positive about the convening of the IGC and yet critical, as it would inevitably have to be, about the substance of this agenda.
The constitutional framework has now been clarified. Everybody is aware of the Portuguese Presidency’s positive and ambitious approach, and they are also aware of the European Parliament’s position. The Commission has just drawn up a document in which it also explains some of its views, some of which are presented as options, which means that the ball, to use a sporting expression, is now in the European Council’s court.
Therefore, Mr President, and my dear friend Dr Seixas da Costa, my question is this: without wishing to know more than we need to at the moment – in order not to compromise our common goal – I would like to know, from the contacts you have made during your tour of the capitals and from your own point of view, if there is any useful information you could give us. I ask this because at the moment our lobbying work is more important than our work within the European Parliament. This involves raising the awareness of the governments that are most reluctant to include further items on this IGC agenda, and persuading them to do so.
My second question is for Commissioner Barnier. It relates to the Commission’s initiative. I was one of its critics, as I felt that the Commission should have gone further at the Helsinki European Council. I also feel, however, that the Commission did an excellent job, whether or not you agree with the solutions put forward in the document adopted on 26 January. However, why is the Commission concentrating only on the Amsterdam leftovers or perhaps on some other point? Why is it confining itself to stating that other issues could be included, specifically the Charter of Fundamental Rights or common foreign and security policy issues? I would therefore challenge the Commission to move forward and to begin, at least by providing alternatives, to work on these other points, which will perhaps later on form part of the agenda and contribute to its success. It could do this in the same thorough way in which it has worked on the proposals we are already familiar with.
I shall finish by offering my warmest congratulations to the Portuguese Presidency. They do not have an easy task, but I know that it is in safe hands."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples