Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.3.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I am speaking on behalf of the Italian Radical Members. President of the Commission, a short while ago you said that no political structure sets out five-year plans. This is true, if we think of Russia’s plans in the thirties, but at the start of your mandate, a few months ago, you yourself announced at the Conference of Presidents that you would, however, be presenting a legislative programme, or rather, the major policy lines of the European government of which you are head and in the running of which we are engaged today. So, whether this is to be a government programme or a potential programme, the breakdown of the document you distributed to us and of the accompanying speech is not much more than a list of good intentions, or rather a list of issues on the table. It does not, however, give us the impression that the Commission is taking a clear position on any of these points, but that it is just doing the European Commission’s duty. In this House, in the past, large-scale debates have taken place on major strategic options which the Commission, under its power of initiative, launched, not as experiments, but as proposals which then made varying degrees of progress, but in any case did contribute to the integration and development of the European Union.
In this case, Mr Prodi, we certainly have a kind of “Ten Commandments”: a whole raft of issues are listed, but if I may say so, we are left with the impression that the Commission is afraid to make any decision regarding what needs to be done about any of these points. There was only one point that you really stressed – too much in my opinion – and that was that it looks almost as if the highest priority task that you are setting yourself is to cease “unnecessary” activities. We should be careful, though, Mr Prodi, because we had a crisis of confidence in the previous Commission and backed this Commission – at least a parliamentary majority backed this Commission – precisely because, first and foremost, the reform of the Commission would bring consolidation, a new identity and a new awareness of being guided by a firm hand.
Let us consider the scenario whereby the Commission, not believing itself to be equal to the task, wishes, or proposes to shed, for example, its powers to implement common policies, which it is nevertheless accorded by the Treaty. What do we expect from a government in any case? What do we ask of this structure – the European Community – which is, so to speak, ambiguous and unique? It is right for joint resources to be controlled supranationally and not to be delegated to the Member States or the TAOs, as has been the case in the past.
It seems that you are proposing the same old menu, but with more unsatisfactory implications, restricting the Commission, so you say, to the task of drawing up a few White Papers, as you proposed. My fear – even if you shake your head, Mr Prodi – is that this will translate into what some countries have thought for years, that the Commission should be a simple secretariat for the Council of Ministers.
If this is the role that the Commission intends to play over the next five years, we federalists are convinced, we are certain that this is not the right path to take and we shall send for you and judge what the Commission intends to do in this regard. The reform is important but, if it aggravates the situation, reduces or weakens the supranational powers of the Commission, then the structure of European integration, as planned by the founding fathers for the European Commission, will be at risk.
As for the other points, Mr Prodi, I will take economic and social policy as an example: the European social model is certainly experiencing a major crisis and it is certainly not coincidental that unemployment tops the list of problems that none of our policies has managed to resolve, but it is not certain that it can be resolved by going through a list of problems that we have discussed in the past, without having a clear idea or proposal
which takes note of the fact that
Europe contains economies that are growing at some of the most sustainable rates and that it is not by chance that these are the economies which have made labour market flexibility and enterprise their prime objective. If we continue to get bogged down with proposals that have given extremely poor results so far, I do not know what we or the Commission will be able to do.
The same goes for enlargement as an end in itself, without it being linked to a reform to make the European Union and its structures much more efficient, and to proposals that the Commission could have made at the IGC.
Mr Prodi, there is one positive thing that I would like to say to you, perhaps contrary to the opinion of some Members, regarding the telegram that you sent to the Austrian Government. We approve of your position on this: you did well not to isolate that country any further. In any case, we shall see what specific steps transpire when the time comes for practical action.
Mr Prodi, I repeat that this is, in our opinion, a slightly short-sighted view. Above all, it lacks drive in the sectors I have mentioned, for example, as regards the Balkans. Can we really continue to leave the Balkans out of the enlargement process, disregarding the fact that Croatia, Macedonia and other countries also have the right to a place in this House that is open to all?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples