Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.8.3-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur warmly for the report. I believe it to be important for two reasons.
First of all, based on the experience that we in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs have gathered, the rapporteur has drawn up a very practical assessment of what has happened in the different open methods of coordination.
Secondly, it is also important because she offers solutions. In her intervention a moment ago, she herself indicated the dangers which the method entails. Mrs Jensen and Mr Schmid have tabled amendments which put these dangers into extra sharp focus. If we were to follow their solutions, particularly those of Mr Schmid, it would mean we would be maintaining bureaucratic mills full of civil servants talking among themselves and organising cosy conferences, where something may occasionally get done, but where no real results will ever be achieved – and if they were, they would remain behind closed doors. The good thing about the open coordination process as we know it now is that the facts and figures will now at least be on the table.
As you know, the process started with a decision taken by Heads of State and Government, who decided at a given time to produce honest figures on employment. This was an extremely important achievement at the time. Nobody produced honest figures with regard to employment. Those figures are important. The question is then, of course, to what extent the common targets can be further pursued.
There are risks. The risks are two-pronged, as Mrs Smet mentioned earlier. There are thus the bureaucratic mills, on the one hand, where nothing happens and which are, from the citizens' point of view, a waste of time. On the other hand, there is the risk that coordination will be taken to extremes. This is mainly a fear in Germany, which is understandable, if you know the situation in Germany, where certain powers are delegated to the federal states. Culture and education fall within the remit of the federal states in Germany. Member States will then start pooling this power. Then what?
will then be agreed upon as if Germany were one country. This is, of course, not federalism, but exactly the opposite. It is, therefore, understandable that German MEPs, in particular, have problems and are concerned that this method, via the backdoor, would lead to a horrible kind of harmonisation which involves neither this Parliament nor the citizens. This is very understandable.
So it is particularly pleasing, in my view, that this report offers a solution. The solution is that this Parliament is to give its authorisation not for applying the method but
a method is put in place in a certain area. I am certain that, if we take the area of culture as an example, something like this can only achieved if Parliament plays its part in such coordination. This is of key importance and this is why this authorisation is so important. This is why I am, at present, strongly opposed to Mrs Jensen's proposal, which would prevent us from making any progress. For four years now, we have been trying to conclude an interinstitutional agreement, without success, as the Council says that it is not provided for in the Treaty. A change is therefore to be made to the Treaty. Mrs Smet has submitted a request to this effect and this is why I believe that we should all give our unqualified support to the solution presented in this report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Numerus clausi"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples