Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.2.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to express my appreciation for the sterling work carried out by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I believe that this is one of the best reports which have so far been produced in the framework of IGCs over recent years. I am making this statement as former rapporteur on the Maastricht Treaty. By the way, Maastricht is not a strange city, Mrs Frassoni, it is a very exciting city where the Dutch-Flemish, German and French cultures all flow into one. Just try one of the pavement cafés and you will see what I mean. I will repeat this to Mrs Frassoni in Italian some time.
Mr President, it is rather a shame that so many amendments have been tabled as this might affect the quality and balance of the report. The large groups should, therefore, restrict themselves to the absolutely necessary amendments during the vote. This seems the best way to retain the good work which the rapporteurs have put in.
As far as our Group is concerned, the resolution needs to be amended on a number of points. For example, we do not agree with the proposal in the resolution to restrict the number of Commissioners to 20 and to introduce a rota system for the smaller countries. One Commissioner per Member State seems a much better solution to us. In order to boost citizens’ confidence in the European Commission, it is vital that each Member State should have a Commission Member. Our Group, too, has therefore tabled amendments to this effect.
Next is the number of MEPs. The resolution argues in favour of the possibility of European lists. This is a sound idea, but if we want 10% of the European members on European lists, then this should not, of course, result in additional MEPs on top of the 700 which have been agreed upon. It is important that we retain a maximum of 700, with or without the European list. Parliament is already vast, the buildings are already packed and the whole thing has to remain workable.
The third point concerns the issue of unanimity. We believe that in an enlarged Union, decision-making should not always be blocked by an excessive right of veto. Unanimity should, therefore, be restricted to the bare essentials. These are constitutional issues such as the deployment of military troops and issues pertaining to territorial integrity. All other decisions should be taken by qualified majority with weighted voting, as is proposed, and – this is vitally important – with colegislative powers exercised by Parliament. We would also thank the Commission for this support.
I would like to end by commenting on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to our Group, it is of paramount importance that this Charter be included in the Treaty. Work to this effect is being carried out, and we sincerely hope that a text can be produced which everyone can agree to incorporate into the Treaty. This is a key issue for the citizens of Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples