Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-10-Speech-3-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071010.17.3-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, our proposals – Mr Lamassoure’s and mine – confirmed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, bring a number of improvements to the current practices regarding the composition of the European Parliament. If adopted, and properly enhanced, there will be no more artificial groupings, no more arbitrary negotiations, no more enlargement at the expense of the efficiency of the European Parliament, which is always growing with the number of Members. There will be more representativity, based on demographic realities and not on nominal or symbolic legal relations, more solidarity between the big and small states resulting from the digressive proportionality of the representation, and full legitimacy based on the civic representation resulting from the fact that the European Parliament is elected by European citizens.
One should note the difference between the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament, which is based on the vote of the European citizens, and national representativity within the European Parliament, which is based on the demographic realities within the Member States. We, the European Parliament, are representative of citizens and of the states at the same time.
You see, immediately, some say only citizens, others say states. We are a
and a
at the same time. A clear separation of this dimension should, perhaps, be considered in the future, but for the time being – once we have accepted that the citizens are voting and that digressive proportionality should take into consideration the size of the communities living on national territories – I am sorry, but we are both.
Of course, within this framework, the concept of European citizenship is still to be clarified, and I hope that this will be done in the near future. Our report, however, is not provisional but transitional. It is transitional because I believe the principles we have defined are long-lasting, but progress is needed, and I am sure that in the future we can add to what we have already proposed to you. Therefore, we have included a number of revision clauses which to our minds – Mr Lamassoure’s and mine – will assure flexibility, adaptability and future progress in the way in which Parliament is composed.
Nobody is penalised by this report. Maybe those with a better demographic policy are rewarded, and certainly it is an invitation for a better demographic policy, including migration policy. I do not think anybody loses – and, perhaps, nobody wins – in terms of a zero-sum game. As long as we have a more democratically legitimate Parliament, everybody wins.
We have some amendments. Some colleagues would like to reduce digressivity in favour of proportionality – more proportionality means more seats for the big countries. Some others would like more digressivity and not more proportionality. More digressivity means more seats for small countries. Therefore, I believe that we have to reject both these extreme options in order to promote the option which is, I agree, imperfect, but which for the time being is the best one. This is the option proposed by Mr Lamassoure and myself. Some would look on the basis of reference. Some would like all their national citizens, irrespective of their country of residence, to be taken into consideration. Others would like to see all inhabitants in their countries being taken into consideration. Others are trying to see only the European citizens residing in a certain country. So we are divided on that. The only solution is to stick with the actual practices and the actual Eurostat figures.
Finally, there are some who are fighting for political prestige and think that, if we are not equally represented in this Parliament, we are unequal in our political weight. I think that once we have accepted digressivity – and proportional digressivity – these artificial groupings cannot survive any longer. If we fail to adopt this resolution, I am afraid that the European Parliament will send the message that it is not able to adopt an important reform and that it has to always wait for the executive institution to decide for it. I think that the IGC will suffer a first failure before it can even consider the issues on its agenda, and this failure might be a prelude to a total failure. I am afraid that everybody will go back to Nice and not to illusory dreams. I am afraid that, then, we will give a message which will mean a split between the big and small countries, and this will undermine any dream of unity, fairness and inclusion. Therefore, I end with an appeal to all my colleagues. I make this appeal to our sense of European responsibility and European solidarity.
Here is Rhodes, and let us prove
that we are true Europeans, and not when giving lessons to the Commission and the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples