Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-047"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission work programme for 2001/Nice2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.2.2-047"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-0482
lpv:speaker	lp:Hanja Maij-weggen2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2003-09-30)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, most people now realise that Nice was a flop, apart perhaps from those who think that Europe should tread water. So it comes as no great surprise to learn that a broad post-Nice discussion is now underway. It seems to me to be absolutely crucial for the Commission to keep the upper hand in this discussion, particularly as it will now culminate in a number of procedures to be established at the Laeken Summit. Parliament has now taken the initiative to produce an interim report by the summer and a definitive report by the end of the year, i.e. shortly before the Laeken Summit. Despite this preparation, it would be useful to set down a few markers now. Our group would also like to do the same in this debate. First and foremost, we must establish what the most serious shortcomings of the Treaty of Nice are, so that the post-Nice agenda has the right content. We believe we should be chiefly concerned with improving the democratic quality of the Union. The mistake made in Nice, i.e. the go-ahead that was given to start deciding on certain issues by qualified majority voting but without affording Parliament codecision rights, is indefensible, because it puts the national parliaments, as well as the European Parliament out of the picture. This will have to be rectified. In addition, the highly complex decision-making processes will have to be reformed. The new rules can no longer be explained to the people, which surely cannot have been the intention. In this debate, I do not find the discussion about producing a clear demarcation of the areas that form part of the policy of Member States and those that fall within the Union’s remit, to be threatening. On the contrary, I feel it is step in the right direction. It would be better still if such a clear division of labour could be linked with the European constitution. Finally, we must put a stop to the endless series of IGCs, which largely consist of officials. It would be far preferable to adopt the convention model, as used for drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is my fervent hope that the Commission will withdraw its idea to set up a forum, because a broad body of this kind is not suitable for reaching sound decisions. Moreover, a convention has the advantage that the national parliaments can take part as well."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph