Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-05-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021205.2.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way.
I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments.
One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here.
The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such.
Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little.
I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament's ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe's response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation.
I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples