Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.3.4-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The commitment of the Portuguese members of the Socialist Group to the European project is a constant point of reference in its work and in its founding principles.
Accordingly, with regard to the solution proposed for the composition of the European Parliament, we believe that insufficient attention has been paid to certain aspects which, in our view, are fundamental. These relate to the need to eliminate a quantified minimum number of seats in the European Parliament for each Member State and to introduce a degressive approach which can correct the negative effects of strictly applying the rules of proportionality.
Furthermore, we believe that the references in the report to the composition of the Commission are also not totally clear. We do not believe that the proposal in the report describes with sufficient clarity and openness the adoption of a criterion putting all Member States on an equal footing, whether the Commission is made up of one Commissioner per Member State or of a college of 20 Commissioners. The same thing could also be said about the idea of a simple rotation principle and about how this would work, which we believe should be properly spelt out if the scenario of a Commission consisting of only 20 members is adopted.
With regard to qualified majority voting in the Council, we believe that the system proposed is not in fact the most acceptable. In fact, although we agree with the double majority principle, we believe that the solution to be adopted should involve Council measures requiring two thirds of the votes of the Member States and a simple majority of the Member States with a majority of the population. We believe that this approach will ensure greater cohesion in the decision-making process.
As regards the rotation of the Council Presidency, we are also unable to accept the new system proposed, under which the presidency of the Council in its various formations shall be divided among the Member States so that the same Member State may not hold the Presidency of more than one of these formations at the same time, and shall rotate by periods of at least two years. We consider that this new rule does not guarantee the necessary balance and equality in the representation of the Member States in the Council.
The issue of electing 10% of the Members of the European Parliament via European lists is also insufficiently clear. We believe that the wording used in the report to describe this option is relatively vague and does not as such offer any guarantees that it would be used to create genuine European public opinion of the kind we would like to see. The European list is a good idea, especially if the only people included in it are individuals who represent a genuine point of reference in the spirit of Europe. Nevertheless, it is our view that this concept should be considered in greater depth so that the fears that we have legitimately expressed here can be set aside.
We are also unable to accept the rule on qualified majority voting for decisions concerning appointments. Until now all decisions in the European Union relating to appointments have been taken unanimously, and there has never been a lack of appointments or any kind of crisis. We believe that the unanimity rule has the virtue of ensuring a greater balance and of avoiding possible conflicts between large and small countries within the European Union.
However, the spirit in which we have voted should not be confused with the motives of those who have a self-seeking and limited vision of national interest. Unlike certain others, we want a politically strong European Union capable of sharing sovereignty and of making an ever greater contribution to social progress and to the well-being of its citizens.
The Portuguese members of the Socialist Group will continue to work, alongside those political forces which favour the broadening and deepening of our political union, to find better formulas for pursuing this political struggle.
For procedural reasons we have made this statement immediately, but some of the points remain dependent on a more detailed knowledge of the changes that have been made.
We wish to add that, because of the speed with which we proceeded to the vote, it was not always easy to understand what we were voting on, there being a certain degree of confusion, specifically about votes on amendments and paragraphs. The Portuguese members of the Socialist Group therefore reserve the right, after studying the results of the vote, to change the way they have voted.
The building of Europe is today, more than ever, essential for peace and progress not only in Europe, but also throughout the world. The European project is a gradual process, which has been able to adapt to changing realities and to respond to the vicissitudes of history.
We find ourselves today at one of those key moments at which the European Union needs to rethink and adapt its policies and its institutions so that it can respond better to the challenges of enlargement and of the effective and democratic functioning of its institutions.
Advocacy of a progressive political union, pursuing the federalism which was at its origins, strengthening European citizenship and the economic and social cohesion and cultural diversity of its peoples are essential and inseparable aspects of the options before us.
The institutional implications of enlargement cannot be allowed to damage the fundamental balance – which the Treaties successfully express – between the twofold legitimacy of the union of peoples and the union of states which underpins the European project and which has made a decisive contribution to shaping its institutions.
The deepening, at global level, of European integration with a view to political union must satisfactorily preserve this fundamental balance which has ensured the success of the European project, bringing together states with such divergent demographic and geographical characteristics.
Enlargement should not in any way be used as a pretext for making institutional changes which would gratuitously upset the equilibrium carefully created since 1957, as these institutional changes have no direct logical or political link with enlargement.
It was out of respect for these principles and convictions that we recognised the value of, and voted for, the European Parliament’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the revision of these Treaties.
And it is also out of respect for these principles and convictions that we have felt obliged to vote against the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report, which, in our view, attempts to respond to the challenges of enlargement by means of solutions which would lead to a significant imbalance in the twofold legitimacy of the union of peoples and the unity of states."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples