Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-14-Speech-2-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990914.1.2-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank the President-designate of the Commission for his presentation. As a newly elected Member of this Parliament, I had been rather looking forward to taking part in the democratic process which was planned before we were finally to adopt a position on the Commission. However, I was quickly disabused of any prior illusions I may have had, because the committee I served on had in fact already prepared the written questions before we held our first meeting. They had been prepared by officials and by the outgoing Parliament. We newly elected Members did not have any chance to pose written questions to the Commission. This can scarcely be called particularly democratic.
Regarding the round of oral questions, this has been a major piece of work requiring a major effort by the Members of Parliament, the proposed Commissioners and the employees in both the Commission and Parliament. And yet it now looks as if it was not an open democratic process that decided the matter. The decisions were taken in a completely different place and against a completely different background. What was decisive was the conversation which you, Mr Prodi, had with Mr Poettering from the Group of the European People’s Party and, after you had twisted the arms of Parliament’s largest group, Mr Poettering obviously did not think he had any choice. Is it a sign of European democracy in the future, not to have any choice?
I will not be in a position to support this form of democracy. Certainly not when all the warnings have been taken no account of, when Commissioners are proposed whom the first Wise Men’s report has cast considerable suspicion upon and when, following the conversation I mentioned, no critical questions are asked of Mr Lamy in the course of the committee’s oral hearing. It is being said that we are getting a strong Commission, stronger than the one which is now bowing out. And Mr Prodi talked about our having an open, modern and efficient administration. There are a lot of positive things to say about this. But the introductory round of questioning does not augur well for how the Commission is to use the power it has. Twisting the arms of the European Parliament’s politicians, steamrollering through ideas such as common defence, common taxation and a common policy on social benefits (which, into the bargain, it is recommended be reduced); bulldozing policies like these through, irrespective of how the populations in Europe see things. A Commission which has the power and working methods of a bulldozer will make sensible co-operation and the development of democracy difficult, if in fact democracy is to be taken even slightly seriously.
The previous speakers did not think that all this was symptomatic of what future co-operation would be like. Now, I believe that problems should be nipped in the bud. Promises were given at the Conference of Presidents. One of these was that a Commissioner who did not have the confidence of Parliament would be asked to resign. This sits ill with the requirement that the Commission be endorsed in the one go: either every single member or no-one at all.
I cannot recommend a “yes” vote. I shall recommend saying “no” to the proposed Commission, and this for political reasons but, first and foremost, for democratic ones."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples