Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard the progress report of the President-in-Office of the Council, and now we are entering the home straight. I would like to make an appeal to the President of the Council, because we in the European Parliament are not mere spectators to what is happening; we are key players and we want Nice to be a success. Having heard your report, however, we must express our deep concern at the state of progress in the Intergovernmental Conference, especially given the objective of making possible an urgent commitment – enlargement – and, furthermore, making our institutions function in a democratic and effective way.
I also hope that the President will not mind if I repeat that we believe it is important that we can advocate the Charter with dignity, regardless of what we do after Nice. Then we will even be able to discuss – as suggested by President Chirac in the Bundestag, not here – the European Constitution. We are prepared to do that and we believe that it may be an important step, but, of course, let us take steps forward, not backwards.
Madam President, I would like to make a final comment in relation to international policy. I listened carefully to what the President-in-Office of the Council said and I believe it is important that we maintain a sustained effort in relation to the dramatic situation in the Middle East and I would also like to welcome the progress that has been made in our foreign, security and defence policy. In conclusion, Madam President, I believe that we must make an appeal – and I do not wish to be over-dramatic – for Nice to be acceptable to everybody. I must of course say that we would pay a heavy price if in Nice we approve agreements in which the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been thrown in the dustbin.
I hope that the President-in-Office of the Council will not object if I remind him of an occasion when the French Presidency, under President Mitterrand, was able to produce a final flourish: the Strasbourg Council at the end of 1989. I hope that now the French Presidency, under President Chirac, a fellow member of Mr Poettering’s group, will be able to do the same thing.
I am going to refer to two positive points of progress. I am pleased with the progress that is being made in Article 7, in Article 191, with regard to the European political parties and to qualified majority voting in certain articles. Nevertheless – and I refer to what the President said – firstly, we are very concerned because, in an Intergovernmental Conference in which Parliament is not asking much, many things are being denied us. I would like the Council to comment on the fact that the cooperation procedure is being replaced by consultation in relation to economic policy (Article 99(5)), and yet unanimity is being maintained in Article 13 (anti-discrimination). With regard to enhanced cooperation, we believe that in the first pillar there should be assent from Parliament and, in commercial policy, I repeat our concern and our request for a strengthening, not a weakening, of Community competence.
Secondly, we believe that there should not only be progress with regard to qualified majority voting, but that there should always be codecision in relation to legislative issues.
With regard to the composition and functioning of the three institutions, my Group agrees with the proposal of the joint resolution. We believe that Parliament, the Commission and the Council must have a joint and global solution based on dual legitimacy, which is able to ensure a balance. We cannot reach a balanced solution for one institution and leave another aside. I would like to say to Mr Poettering, who has become the advocate for the so-called small countries, that we are all small here, Mr Poettering, there is no large country: if there were one large one it would try to dominate the others. I would have preferred it if what he asked of the Council had been advocated by his Group when we discussed the distribution of seats in Parliament.
I am going to refer specifically to an issue which is of great concern to Parliament – I noticed that the President of the Commission made no reference to it – which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is an absolutely key issue. Every day we talk about the fact that we have to be closer to the citizens. The document which brings us closer to the citizens and which offers them guarantees, not only to the citizens here but also to those who may join us through enlargement, is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We feel proud of this Charter and we do not understand the kind of negotiation that permits statements such as those which the President-in-Office of the Council has referred to, i.e. if we insist that the Charter is linked to the Treaties, then that is going to negatively affect its proclamation. I believe that this would even go back on what was agreed in Biarritz. I think this is completely unacceptable and, of course, it is a good argument in favour of ending the closed door method for the Intergovernmental Conferences, which has had its day, so that we can hold discussions in public and find out who could say such scandalous things."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples