Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the most important aim of the Nice Summit is enlargement of the European Union and the EU’s preparation for this enlargement. I might also add, on behalf of my group, that we are fully committed to enlargement taking place as soon as possible. However, it is important at this stage to discuss what is to happen post-Nice. For this we need vision, and this vision has been expressed over the last few months. Our group strongly supports constitutionalising the European Union Treaties, and this also means that the reform of the Treaties should be open, with civil society being able to participate in this process. We consider the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be a success. It certainly could have been worded better, and, indeed, it can be honed and polished after Nice. No doubt in time it will come to form a part of the European Union’s constitution. But we wish there were at least a reference to it in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, as our citizens should be already benefiting from this Charter.
As regards decisions that are at present closer to us, we cannot emphasise enough the importance of qualified majority decisions. The Nice Summit cannot succeed unless the system of qualified majority voting is extended. It is very important that the European Parliament is closely involved in the codecision procedure, as, otherwise, it will be even more difficult than before to decide on legislation. The European Parliament will bring transparency to this decision-making process. Let us take the example of environment taxation. In our discussions on climate policy we often criticise the United States of America for not wanting to compromise its sovereignty and enter into international agreements on climate protection, but there are Member States among us which also insist on keeping what they imagine is their sovereignty intact, and which do not wish to switch to a system of qualified majority decisions, for example, in the matter of environmental taxation. We have to break free from this.
President Prodi spoke on the subject of trade policy. We all certainly want the European Union to have a strong role in the globalising world, but, Mr Prodi, our group sees trade policy becoming open and transparent as a precondition to the Commission having more powers, and, at present, that is not the case.
Finally, I would also like to say that it is important at present to ensure that the European Union does not become a community just for the big Member States. One issue Parliament has had problems with is that we should realise that Parliament’s size in the future cannot be categorically limited to 700, as this would also limit the manifestation of pluralism here in Parliament. That would result in a shift towards a two-party system, and that cannot be democratic. I would appeal to Mr Barón Crespo for understanding in this matter, as I have a feeling that the other Group Chairmen do support this aim to leave the matter of the size of the European Parliament to some extent open. This would be a very important position for Parliament to adopt, and we will be able to vote on it tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples