Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-050"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation of the Copenhagen European Council (Copenhagen, 12-13 December 2002)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021204.3.3-050"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-04-Speech-3-0512
lpv:speaker	lp:Hannes Swoboda2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there are just two questions I would like to touch on. The Commission is right if it thinks that a range of difficult issues remain to be resolved, and we can be grateful to the Presidency of the Council for coming up with a number of proposals on them. Now if Mr Poettering believes that governments – by which he means the governments of the Member States – must now make the effort to come up with a solution, then I do indeed agree with him, but, on the other hand, I also want to make it clear that the same is true of the governments of the candidate countries. I know that Poland has a pain threshold. I have deep sympathy with Poland, and especially with its present government, but we too have pain thresholds, and I do think that both sides have to acknowledge the necessity of compromise in this area. Nor should the candidate countries fix the measuring rod so high up that it is no longer possible to jump over it. Secondly, let us look at procedure and the institutional issues, in which the President-in-Office of the Council has described Parliament as having an interest. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we have already spent some considerable time today discussing this in another context, and we are not dealing here with an interest, but with our rights and also with the Council's undertaking to talk to Parliament from the very outset. If it had done that, our situation would be an easier one. Mr Napolitano put forward a few arguments in favour of the procedure being changed at some points, and, much as I respect him, I am not convinced. My personal opinion is that every country, from the first day of membership, is entitled to a Commissioner, even if a Commissioner without portfolio. I take the view that, especially when there are ten new Commissioners, this House must also have the right of at least overall approval. Such overall approval could only, of course, be given with the involvement of the relevant nine new Member States, as it would be perverse for us to vote on a Polish Commissioner when the Polish MEPs were not allowed to. This brings us, of course, to the detailed procedure for the new Parliament. I can see the legal arguments where the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, but I do agree with the proposal for its virtually full involvement, as, at the end of the day, these countries too have to vote on it and ratify it. One thing I ask of the President-in-Office of the Council: talk to the new candidates and negotiate with them! They are meant to be fully involved. Before you come to a decision, though, talk to us in this House, and then it will be easier for us to come up with a joint solution!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph