Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.1.3-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioners, Madam Vice-President, I would first like to make a few observations about the key points. The first of these is the enlargement of Europe. We have already heard several times that the signals indicating the direction the Commission would like to go in here are too weak. Let us take a look at the Balkans, for example. This region in particular now feels as if it has been rather abandoned – the finance available to it has been reduced. That may be justified, but that is all the more reason to give stronger political signals offering these countries two alternatives: either the route to membership at a later stage, or some other option.
There is one thing that I find totally incomprehensible. I am sorry to say that and have only praise for you, Mr Haarder, for sitting here for hours and listening; I really admire that. I have in mind the very disappointing opinion adopted by the Council, by Coreper, on the issue of other forms of legislation. It is not often you see something so restrictive and backward looking. You really cannot expect Parliament to surrender legislative competence as long as you are not willing to budge an inch yourselves! You talked about comitology as if it were the holy of holies, as if it were our primary objective! That really is not acceptable. We need to have a situation in which Parliament and the Council are to some extent treated as equals. We do not want to impinge on your rights, but please respect ours!
The Zagreb Summit is coming up. I do not know what the Council has in mind, but I would like to know, Madam Vice-President, what the Commission intends to propose at the Zagreb Summit, at Zagreb II that is, about what should happen in the Balkan region. Is it being specifically identified as an enlargement region once the first round of enlargement has been completed? Yes or no?
Secondly, there is the issue of stability and security. The point I am about to make has already been made, but I think it could be made more forcefully. Our security is very closely linked to our viewing other, neighbouring regions, ranging from the Balkans to the Caucasus, as partner regions with which we have appropriate treaties and where we intend to extend cooperation against cross-border crime and illegal mass migration.
On a more positive note, let us look at energy. I think we can agree on this, Commissioner. You have brought forward a raft of energy policy proposals, including proposals on energy policy in relation to nuclear safety. We are now in a position to discuss the details and I am sure that we will not always agree. I believe, however, that it is high time we regarded a coherent energy policy strategy as being part of our external policy.
What regions do we want to link more closely with Europe, especially as regards energy security policy? Let us consider the Caucasian region – or are we leaving it up to the Americans to act there? The Balkans are also involved in terms of the various pipelines that need to be developed and secured there. This combination of external policy strategy with security policy strategy and even including energy security needs to be made far stronger.
Thirdly, there is the issue of a sustainable and inclusive economy. Here I think that what is lacking is a statement about economic policy cooperation, particularly with the European Central Bank. The way this cooperation has been implemented in practice so far is by no means satisfactory. I do recognise, however, that Mr Prodi's observations about increased flexibility in relation to the stability pact are not reflected in the work programme, not directly at least. In which case I do not know why he highlighted that point, but so be it. However, the issue of how we can cooperate with the Central Bank to assume greater responsibility in terms of economic policy, and therefore also employment policy, needs to be given greater emphasis.
On page 14 there is a paragraph about services of general interest. I am amazed that the Commission should be saying again that we need to initiate a debate on this. A much-needed debate is already taking place, although unfortunately not one in which the Commission has played any really significant role. Mr Prodi's comments on this need to be taken really seriously if we are to make progress in this area, because services of general interest are an important issue not just in France but also in many of our Member States, and we need to have a clear line on this.
Lastly, I would like to make some general points about the legislative proposals. Madam Vice-President, you know that you are our partner in the debate on alternative forms of regulation. We in this House have a very great interest in seeing laws adopted more quickly and in applying the legislative process in a more flexible way, but to do that we need the cooperation of the Commission and the Council. I will say something about that in a moment.
The Commission is willing to help on a great many issues. It is perhaps a little too fearful that we want to take away its right of initiative. We do not want to do that, nor are we able to. Even if we did want to, we could not take it away from you. But that does not mean you are entering into a more productive dialogue with us. And it does not mean, above all in areas where we have delegated our legislative competence, that we have a right of call-back, because we are after all surrendering some of our competence and so we want something in return."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples