Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-146"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-04-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:IGC (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000412.4.3-146"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-04-12-Speech-3-1472
lpv:speaker	lp:Margrietus van den Berg2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3,3 vice-chair; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3,3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would first of all like to thank both rapporteurs. Long before the IGC was launched, the Dutch social democratic delegation had already taken an active interest in the IGC. We have held large public debates in the Netherlands and have done a great deal of groundwork. After all, the IGC should prepare the Union for enlargement, and this enlargement will require the current Member States to make sacrifices. These sacrifices, however, are small, given the historic opportunity of unifying the East and the West in a secure Europe characterised by peace. In addition, it should, of course, bring Europe closer to its citizens, because the distance between Brussels and our citizens is still far too great. The IGC should therefore make up the democratic shortfall. For this purpose, it is essential to extend majority decision-making to all legislation, except for constitutional matters, and have codecision power for Parliament, as well as the well-known double formula in the Council decision-making process. Simply reducing a democratic deficit is not sufficient to improve contact with the citizen. This is why we have specifically committed ourselves to a better and institutionalised social dialogue with non-governmental organisations, since they look after many of the citizens’ interests. This is provided for in Amendment No 162. Another subject which is close to our hearts is that of making closer cooperation more flexible. It is clear that the de facto veto, currently inherent in this procedure, must go. Once enlargement has taken place, closer cooperation could do a great service to a Union containing a still greater diversity of Member States within its borders. In our opinion, the report does not go far enough regarding another point, namely that relating to individual responsibility which must be granted by Commissioners. We firmly believe that it must be possible for Parliament to issue a strong warning to a Commissioner who loses the confidence of Parliament. In our opinion, such a procedure does more justice to a democratic balance between the institutions than the Prodi procedure, but unfortunately, the majority of MEPs considered this step a bridge too far. Madam President, with regard to our Euro-Commissioner, we would ideally like to have one Commissioner per country. We would accept a rota system for all states at a pinch, because we support the compromise made by the socialist group. We think that, ultimately, our compromise has struck a sound balance between small and large Member States. We hope that this will receive support from this Parliament."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph