Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020515.10.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the issue with which Mr Lamassoure's report deals is indeed a complex one. This was apparent not only in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, but was also shown by the first debates in the Convention, to whose work this report will surely make a contribution. For that the rapporteur deserves our gratitude.
I abstained in the vote on this report in the Committee and would like to adduce a number of examples of things which, to my mind, the report has not yet addressed in a convincing way. It may well be helpful to define the three types of competence that already exist, but that falls short of a clear statement that the first priority must be to resolve Europe's problem with democracy.
When we come to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, things strike me as having been turned on their head. Why? The report gives the impression that Court rulings are needed in order for both principles to be adhered to and put into effect. Nowhere, though, in the text as a whole, is there any mention of the fact that the real problem is to be found elsewhere, with the European political actors who actually initiate action. There are clear provisions in the Treaties, for example the protocol on subsidiarity in the Treaty of Amsterdam, by which all the institutions are bound. The point actually at issue is rather how they carry out the duties accruing to them on that basis, how seriously they really check whether the principles are being infringed before they take action. At the end of the day, everyone has to do this sort of initial check. If they did, nobody would have to go to the ECJ before the entry into force of a legal measure which in most cases has taken years of debate and associated procedures to come into being.
Point 33 states that the framework of competences is to be reviewed after ten years. What this means, and what its point is, is a mystery to me. Is it meant to mean that there is to be an amendment to the Treaties every ten years? Is a rule of this sort really what is wanted, something that is rigidly fixed to a ten-year cycle and utterly divorced from potential political frameworks and requirements?
Above all, though, the report fails to make clear the need for a social Europe, and that its creation is one of the EU's most pressing tasks against the backdrop of economic and monetary union. We set ourselves the objective of promoting economic and social progress, with a high level of employment as well. We even want to achieve full employment by 2010. The words to date have been splendid, but they need to be backed up by actions. Employment and social security are not variables in competition, but every citizen's individual and fundamental right, and it is in that direction that the European Union must develop."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples