Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-15-Speech-3-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990915.9.3-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I have just voted against the composition of this Commission and abstained from voting for Romano Prodi. My reason for this: in May of this year, Commission President Prodi received a convincing vote from the European Parliament to initiate a comprehensive reform programme with a new team for a Commission in need of cleaning up. Yet the Commission is already tarnished.
Mr Prodi did not react to the outcome of the hearings. In view of the considerable doubt expressed as to the competence of the Belgian Philippe Busquin for the research department and the plethora of accusations regarding his affairs, he should have rejected the candidates. Furthermore, he accepted without reservation the proposal from the French government to nominate Pascal Lamy as Commissioner responsible for foreign trade, even though he is the architect of the “Jacques Delors System”, and therefore responsible for the emergence of a completely confusing financial structure within the Commission. This system is the real reason behind the serious lack of organisation which led to the resignation of the Santer Commission.
Nothing has come of the grandiose promise of “a fair balance across the political spectrum”. The majority of the Commission is from the Left. Romano Prodi did not raise any objection to the German Chancellor when the latter nominated a Green and a Social Democrat purely on the grounds of party political affiliation. Word has now got out about Schröder’s lack of any definite line and sheer power tendencies, and Germans the length and breadth of the country are now making him pay. In contrast to his predecessor Helmut Kohl who, five years ago, accepted the opposition’s nomination for the Commission – and it was not easy for me to vote for Monika Wulf-Mathies in 1994 – Schröder was not prepared to give consideration to the views of today’s opposition, the CDU/CSU, the victors in the European elections in Germany. Elmar Brok would have been a more excellent nomination and one capable of winning a majority.
It is intended that Michaele Schreyer will take responsibility for budgetary issues, an area in which she can only supervise and not shape policy; she could do nothing to alleviate misgivings relating to her ability to take responsibility for budgetary issues. Günter Verheugen is being pushed into the sphere of enlargement where the decisive steps have already long since been taken. He will not even be responsible for his own Directorate-General and is, therefore, only a junior Commissioner. I cannot accept this second-class arrangement for the largest Member State in the EU, no doubt a result of Schröder’s pigheadedness.
The upshot of all this: I have to reject this Commission. This vote does not concern expressly the Italian Mario Monti (Trade), the Luxembourger Viviane Reding (Culture and Education) and the British national Chris Patten (External Affairs) who, and I myself am convinced of this, left behind an indelible impression of competence and an ability to communicate.
In spite of the misgivings mentioned, I did not say “no” to Romano Prodi. Instead I abstained. I recognise that he has taken on board five demands from the Group of the European People’s Party, inter alia, with regard to the legislative right of nomination of the European Parliament, the conduct of the Commissioners in the case of a vote of no-confidence and the necessary permanent dialogue concerning Commission reform. I hope that Mr Prodi will become someone who is willing and able to undertake reform and who will give Europe’s citizens new confidence in clear and efficient European institutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples