Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-17-Speech-1-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000117.2.1-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the presentation of the Prodi Commission’s political programme for the whole legislature was initially a proposal by the Group of the Party of European Socialists which was unanimously approved by the Conference of Presidents in September and which was also explicitly accepted by President Prodi, who reiterated his commitment in his inaugural speech.
This commitment is important because the Commission is a body with a monopoly of initiative in accordance with the Treaties and, therefore, basically dictates this Parliament’s political and legislative activity for the next five years. I would also like to point out, Madam President, that this Parliament voted to express its confidence in President Prodi during the previous legislature. It did so again during this legislature, in July, and then, in September, it voted once more to approve the whole Commission. There has therefore been enough time for the Commission to prepare its programme and for us to become familiar with it and explain it to our citizens. To this end, I would like to remind you of the resolution of 15 September, which recommended that the proposal be presented as soon as possible.
The events of last week – which originated outside the Conference of Presidents, that Conference being used simply to corroborate and ratify decisions taken elsewhere – present us with a dilemma. Either the Commission is not ready to present this programme, in which case it should clarify it. According to its President, it is in a position to do so. Given that the Commission is represented by Vice-President de Palacio, I believe that, before voting, it would help if the Commission could let us know how ready it is to present this programme, as agreed. Alternatively, Parliament is not ready to examine this programme, as some appear to be suggesting. In my opinion, this second hypothesis would imply the failure of Parliament in its duty as a Parliament, as well as introducing an original thesis, an unknown method which consists of making political groups aware, in writing, of a speech concerning the Commission’s programme a week earlier – and not a day earlier, as had been agreed – bearing in mind that the legislative programme will be discussed in February, so we could forego the debate, since on the next day our citizens will hear about it in the press and on the Internet and Parliament will no longer have to worry about it.
My Group believes that since a parliament is meant to listen, debate and reflect, there can be no justification whatsoever for this delay and we believe that, if the Commission is ready to do so, we still have time to re-establish the original agreement between Parliament and the Commission and proceed in a manner which fulfils our duty to our fellow citizens. Therefore, the proposal of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, and which you have mentioned, is that the Prodi Commission present its legislative programme on Wednesday, including its proposed administrative reform, because, otherwise, we could find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: on the pretext that there is no text, on the one hand, the President of the Commission would be denied his right to speak in this Parliament and, on the other hand, there would be a debate on a reform when Parliament had no prior knowledge of the texts on which it is based. Therefore, Madam President, I would ask you to request that the Commission express its opinion on this issue and that we then proceed to the vote."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples