Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.2.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall be very brief in my reply because it differs only slightly from what Prime Minister Persson said.
The reaction to this summit of tempered optimism but awareness that difficult objectives have been achieved has been common to almost all of today's speeches, as has commitment to meeting the need for future progress and the even greater need to focus on action and implementation of decisions taken. Having said that, I do acknowledge the objections raised and comments made by many Members on the issue of decision-making processes, on the need for new decision-making processes. Mr Brok, Mr Poettering and Mr Segni made it clear, from the different areas of the House, that the decision-making processes observed during summits and in all our work must be strictly reformed in this lengthy review process which we have undertaken, due to be completed between the end of 2003 and early 2004. This is a clear commitment made by Parliament and all of us.
Another general point, then, was covered by many speakers: on the one hand, the conviction that globalisation is absolutely essential, and not just a necessity but an extremely positive debate for Europe, but, on the other, the justified – genuine – fear of some of the effects of globalisation. I cannot, in this Chamber, fail to make my deep concern known to Parliament at the way the excellent economic progress and the rise in employment which have taken place in recent years in Europe have been accompanied by increased disparity in the distribution of wealth in what could ultimately be called a social injustice indicator, which does not necessarily have to be part of the globalisation package. Quite the contrary: it is possible to rectify the situation and combine globalisation and social justice. This is a subject which requires a great deal of thought for, all too often, we confuse the two things: we believe, that is, that globalisation, the fact that we are opening up our economies, will automatically lead to a less equitable, wider disparity in the distribution of wealth. This does not have to be the case at all.
Furthermore, another point emerged as a common concern, linked to the forthcoming Gothenburg Summit, and that is the adoption of a unanimous position on the Kyoto Protocol. This is certainly not an attack on the United States, merely awareness that we must act responsibly. And, as Europeans, we must have a general sense of responsibility towards all the citizens of the world.
I would like to end with one last point, which might appear minor but which I consider to be extremely important. It concerns one of the most important issues dealt with at the Stockholm Summit, and that is the implications of the enlargement of financial market relations and the resulting relationship between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. Mrs Randzio-Plath has raised this issue and rightly so, and I would like to respond briefly right here before Parliament, for it is extremely important.
I would like to make it clear that the agreement reached in Stockholm refers to a Decision on comitology, reproducing the 1999 Decision word for word – what is known colloquially as the Aerosol case – including the statements it contains and the Commission's statement. In this case, the Commission did not declare in Stockholm that the entire securities sector should be considered to be a sensitive sector, as requested by certain States, but it did undertake to avoid going against predominant views which might emerge within the Council in the case – and only in the case – of particularly sensitive implementing measures. In other words, in particular, the Commission will assess each case individually, and I can therefore see no reason to change the current balance between the institutions in terms of delegated powers. Indeed, Parliament will be able to comment on the distinction between the essential elements and the technical provisions of the measures proposed by the Commission. Clearly, this distinction must be established through the usual procedure for codecision between Parliament and the Council. In addition, Parliament will, and must, be informed on a regular basis by the Commission of the Securities Committee's proceedings and, If the European Parliament resolves that the draft measures submitted by the Commission exceed the implementing powers provided for in the framework legislation, the Commission commits itself to expeditiously re-examine those draft measures, taking the utmost account of Parliament's position.
There it is: we have to decide on the basis of concrete legislative proposals within the framework of the codecision procedure. I wanted to point this out because it would be a shame for the progress of such an important matter as this, decided upon at Stockholm – the most important decision taken in Stockholm – to be hampered by our procedural problems or our difficulties in adopting a common position. This must not happen: we must proceed with all transparency, for the very reason that the European citizens expect the decisions taken by the highest assembly, that is the decisions taken by the Council, then to be rapidly implemented, or Europe's credibility will fall even more. This will be extremely important at the Gothenburg Council. I hope that the preparations for the forthcoming summit will be made with the same diligence and the same transparency which characterised the Stockholm preparations because, ultimately, Gothenburg is Act II of the Stockholm Council: that is, it will end the series of reforms decided upon in Lisbon, reforms whose long-term compatibility must be assessed, which is something we are no longer in the habit of doing. But if we do not learn to do this as well, all the decisions we take will have to be revised in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples