Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.6.3-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, for the Socialist Group I can say we will be supporting the draft opinion put forward by the rapporteurs on behalf of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are giving a positive opinion on the convening of the IGC precisely because we have been impressed by the attitude of the Portuguese Presidency which has taken on board our request that the agenda of the IGC be widened. The Amsterdam leftovers is not a very good term, because they are very important subjects in themselves. Let us call them the first three subjects of the IGC.
These first three subjects are very important but they are subjects which were explored in detail by our Member States during the last IGC. They did not quite reach a conclusion on them but they certainly do not need nine months of further study. They need a political deal. It is more a question of nine minutes, perhaps nine hours if it is difficult, locked away together in a room to reach a solution on these subjects, not nine months. In those circumstances it would be silly not to widen the agenda.
There are other issues that should fruitfully be looked at, especially before such a large widening of the Union to so many new countries. Nobody is asking for a Christmas tree. Nobody is asking for an IGC of the Maastricht style with a hundred or more subjects being debated. However, there are six, seven, eight, nine perhaps, subjects which it would be very appropriate and useful to address. There is time. Remember the IGC that led to the Single European Act. It lasted only five months. The IGC that led to the enormous Maastricht Treaty lasted a year. Only the Amsterdam Treaty lasted a year and a half and that was because everyone knew you had to wait for the results of the British election if you were going to have any outcome from that IGC so that was a different reason. A year is ample time to address a large number of issues and it should certainly be enough to address the few crucial points that we wish to be added to the agenda. I am pleased to see that the Commission shares our view.
The Commission has just published its opinion and it has done exactly what Parliament asked of it – to bring forward a comprehensive proposal complete with actual draft treaty articles. I thank the Commission for doing that even if, of course, I do not agree with everything the Commission said. I think there are some gaps in what they have put forward. Nonetheless the Commission has provided a service and I pay tribute to Commissioner Barnier who is here with us today for doing that. They have laid out for the public to see some of the crucial issues that we are going to have to address in this IGC. That is all to the good. The Parliament, the Council presidency and the Commission are pulling in the same direction for a wider agenda. I wish you every success, President of the Council, in making sure that the European Council agrees to this agenda and that on Valentine’s Day when you start off the IGC it will be under good auspices and you will bring it to a good conclusion, also when the French Presidency takes over, by the end of this year."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples