Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.4.2-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall make three very straightforward points. The first concerns the European Parliament’s relationship to this forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and its role therein. Progress has certainly been made by comparison with the previous Intergovernmental Conference, but the most worrying aspect is that the Council had on the table a proposal which would give the European Parliament a greater role, a proposal which would grant it a role similar to the one the Commission will have in these negotiations, and it did not approve this proposal. As we know, this is the fundamental problem, because it concerns the very nature of the European Parliament. This is not a parliament that functions within the normal constitutional systems of our countries.
It is worth stating here though that we do not accept that the European Parliament should be given a lesser role in a discussion process as important as such a large-scale revision of the Treaty on European Union. We consider it vital that there should be two representatives of the European Parliament in the preparatory group but we feel that it is less fitting for the European Parliament that the President of the European Parliament, instead of dealing directly with Heads of State and Governments, should be put into a situation in which she is heard before the meetings of the General Affairs Council Ministers. This is not treatment befitting the European Parliament.
The second issue concerns the content, and we have had occasion to say this in the Brussels mini-session. The Commission has shown great ambition where enlargement is concerned and little or no ambition in the revision of the Treaty. We have the Amsterdam leftovers, we have the Treaty’s implications for defence issues and possibly, for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, although this is an open door – or rather an open window – through which the Portuguese Presidency must perform a miracle. I would say that it is a miracle that could not be performed after Amsterdam. And this is what concerns us. If only the leftovers from Amsterdam remain, the discussion will be about efficiency and not about the European Union project. The discussion could be about political manoeuvring and could lead to rule by a board of management. From this point of view, the Commission has a crucial role in ensuring that the agenda of the IGC is not dictated by the lowest common denominator of each State’s interests, but rather that it has a global vision of the European Union project. This is why the Commission cannot abdicate its responsibilities and must present specific proposals to this effect.
Finally, Mr President, I would like to highlight two issues concerning the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency: the Summit on employment, which I consider to be very important and which should have been studied more carefully by this House, and the fact that priority should be given to the protection of public health and food safety. Finally, I have a question for the Council, although I am not sure if it is represented here today, Mr President, to answer this question: what is the future of the Euro-African Summit scheduled for the next six-month term?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples