Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.6.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted against the Gil-Robles report on reinforced cooperation, i.e. cooperation that does not involve all but only some EU Member States. In fact, although this report tends to introduce a little more flexibility into the highly inflexible system laid down by Title VII of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which is welcome, the final result is still far from adequate. It reflects far too monolithic a concept of the Union, under which all forms of cooperation would have to operate within a ‘single institutional framework’ and would necessarily be directed towards the objective creating a super-state.
The Gil-Robles report even proposes bringing the common foreign and security policy and the common defence policy within the purview of reinforced cooperation, thus centralising those policies even more than they are at present (Paragraph 4).
These proposals are not acceptable; the need for cooperation within Europe is genuine, but also diverse and multiform, and it can no longer be locked into a uniform Community framework based on majority voting. Furthermore, the report, and this is a significant omission, contains no explanation as to how cooperation procedures involving one third of Member States could actually be made to work within the existing institutions without reforming those institutions.
In reality, the European Parliament is practising delay tactics. Parliament wished earlier to prevent the emergence of differentiated forms of cooperation in the Treaty of Amsterdam, but was finally forced to give way and accept ‘reinforced cooperation’. It is now attempting to prevent reinforced cooperation being made more flexible, but here too it will eventually lose.
We believe that what ought to be termed ‘differentiated’ cooperation procedures should not have to follow predetermined lines in their objectives; nor should there be limits on their creation or constraints on their operation. Some procedures could use the Community framework should this be found desirable, others could create their own ad hoc institutions, linked to the Union only by a liaison secretariat. Finally, differentiated cooperation should preferably operate on the basis of the unanimity principle, thus avoiding any relapse into the disadvantages of the Community method."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples