Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-347"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.12.3-347"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too must say that this is a most interesting debate. We already had a taste of it in committee when Mr Laschet suddenly stepped forward ardently advocating rejection, despite belonging to the same group as the rapporteur. If we are in favour of rejection today, it is not because we do not appreciate Mr Ferber's work. On the contrary, we truly believe that Mr Ferber was a tough negotiator. We have the greatest respect. Nonetheless, we take the view that one voice here in Parliament must give a clear warning because a development is being introduced here which should give us all cause for concern.
Like the previous speaker, I consider that this agreement cannot come under the gentlemen's agreement because it does not concern administrative expenditure. These are politically charged questions, as Mr Ferber has already made clear in his speech. They are also questions of transparency and control of the common foreign and security policy and of defence policy. Here too we are of one opinion.
But Mr Ferber believes that introducing a separate title is sufficient guarantee that Parliament will be able to exercise control in the future. We have our doubts. We take the view that this separate title alone does not empower Parliament; on the contrary, because these posts are the Council's responsibility, they are beyond our influence and control. I think this is the deciding factor; not just the overlap, but the question of who can exercise control. What is at stake here is the delicate balance of power between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The Council is taking on more and more, trying to resolve more and more intergovernmentally rather than by really communitising these areas. That would mean making the Commission responsible and strengthening Parliament's right of control. That is our one great fear, namely that we have no real control.
There is also another point which must also be addressed. In our view this question should be resolved in a conciliation procedure, not under a trialogue, because that would demonstrate exactly how much importance we attach to this question and just how much store we set by Parliament's having full right of control.
I think that the Council should be quite clear that Parliament will not brook this policy of using supplementary budgets to alter political relations and the political balance of power."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples