Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-107"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20011001.7.1-107"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a treaty expires, but the foundations remain, for the foundation, the ECSC Treaty, has long been part of the structure of the European Union. We still, too, have the day of commemoration of 9 May 1950, that day when Robert Schumann presented the brilliant plan of Jean Monnet from the South of France and thereby laid the foundations of what we today call the European work for peace. The ECSC Treaty has two successors: the subject of our speeches today and, as regards future coal mining, the aid issues with which we will deal later on. I would like to make four brief remarks about the two reports before us. First, the procedure proposed here is distinguished by pre-democratic conceptions. This was tolerable in 1952, but it is of course no longer acceptable to let the Council alone decide when, in the meantime, the Union's citizens have elected us to be their fifth democratic Parliament. We must be clear about that. Second, it is right to use the annual revenue of EUR 45 million to support coal and steel research. One could say in legal terms that it is an anticipated form of reinforced co-operation among a few. It is of course just as right to consider how the committee recommends, on the basis of Mr Linkohr's presentation, to progressively make the fund into a foundation, because then the problem of new members will be easier to solve than if they had to have a share in the old members' contributions. Third, the Commission has done the right thing in subordinating the Research Fund to fundamental rights, for the Charter of Fundamental Rights recapitulates the laws in force. That means that everything that is to be organised at a European level must be measured against the yardstick of fundamental rights and is bound by them. I find it objectionable that the Council, in its deliberations, struck out these three proposals by the Commission and wants to remove the text's reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That constitutes an incredible legal scandal, which we must denounce, and for that reason I call it by its name. So I come to my fourth point, and am particularly curious to know how you, Commissioner, will respond to it. Your Commission originally rested on a different legal foundation. You now refer to the protocol to the Treaty of Nice, and that is pretty breathtaking, as the Treaty of Nice is not expected to enter into force before 23 July 2002. On that day, however, the ECSC Treaty ceases to have effect, and we can hardly allow a lawless state of affairs. So I would very much like a reply from you as to how you intend to proceed and as to what you intend to propose, so that there will be no state of lawlessness from midnight on 23 July 2002, for then the gripping question would arise of to whom this money, which would then no longer have an owner in law, actually belonged."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph