Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020515.8.3-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the proposals named by Mr Solana today have scarcely all been prepared by him. Dispensing with the rotation system resembles successive French Presidents’ attempts to make their mark on the EU through what was termed a ‘directorium’. Is it the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, Mr de Boissieu, who is behind this? The rotation of the presidencies is the most democratic thing about the EU. It means that everyone is equal. Luxembourg can chair the meetings in the same way as France. Lilliputian Luxembourg has in actual fact had some of the best presidencies. President Chirac of France’s Treaty of Nice does not do credit to France, and it would scarcely get past the French electorate in the event of a referendum. The majority of Frenchmen are, in general, more intelligent than France.
Mr Aznar, the Spanish President-in-Office of the Council, has specifically used his presidency of the European Council to instruct the President of the Commission to postpone the reform of the common fisheries policy and sack the Commission’s Director-General for Fisheries. On Friday, Mr Smidt was Director-General and was not on the rotations list. On Sunday, a trick was played in the course of a telephone conversation. On Monday he was sacked, and the Commission lied directly about the reason. The events are the biggest scandal I have experienced in my 23 years in this House. It requires an independent inquiry, which the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries has quite correctly requested. For now, it must simply be concluded that coming from a large country is not in itself any guarantee of a good presidency.
Let us bear in mind the similarities between the countries and share the tasks. We must not have group presidencies involving the large countries, in which the small countries are allocated the least interesting tasks. It would be wiser to reduce the number of Councils of Ministers and working parties and focus on the transnational tasks we cannot carry out as effectively in our own countries. It would be wiser to limit and consolidate EU legislation so that it becomes more manageable. It would make more sense to introduce full transparency in the Council of Ministers when the Council acts as legislator. In that way, we should all be able to see when officials legislate instead of the elected representatives who have legislative power under the constitutions of all 15 EU countries. In that way, we could have openness, democracy and proximity to the people instead of secrecy, a lobbying culture and government at a distance."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples