Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in this Parliament, which is a pluralist parliament, we have today achieved an unusual degree of unanimity amongst the Members who have spoken. I believe that all the speakers are very concerned about the results of the Nice European Council. This is not a question – despite what my friend, Elmar Brok, has said – of two exams that we have to pass; Amsterdam and Nice. No, this is a much longer-standing issue. I remember the enlargement of 1995, when the question of institutional issues was already being raised, and I remember a letter from Chancellor Kohl in which he told us to approve enlargement and then the rest would be resolved immediately. We did so, the enlargement of 1995 went ahead, the discussion group presided over so well by Carlos Westendorp was created, Amsterdam arrived and now we are going to have Nice and practically nothing has changed, Mr President, we go round and round in circles on institutional issues and never find solutions which will allow us to cope with this hugely ambitious task of enlargement to 27 members.
This is what worries us and it worries all this afternoon’s speakers. This is the message that we wish to send to the European Council through you, Mr President. You should be aware that we are not going to judge this French Presidency on its considerations of the economic services of general interest, which is a very important issue. No, we are going to judge it on the mandate of the Nice Conference, which is the same as it was in Finland plus enhanced cooperation.
There are two aspects of this issue that are absolutely fundamental to this Parliament: How will qualified majority voting be extended? And with this extension, when the decisions are legislative, will there always be codecision with Parliament? That is the first consideration.
The second one, Mr President, is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Institutional issues are not of interest to many people, because they are complicated issues. The Charter of Fundamental Rights – I have had the opportunity to talk about this in many places – is of interest to people, because they understand and feel strongly about fundamental rights. I believe that in the Convention we produced good work. I believe that we have a good Charter and that this Council is going to waste a great political opportunity because, in the proposal you are making, Mr President, the proclamation – the one which my friend and group Chairman, Mr Poettering, calls a
is a proclamation by stealth. You tell us to proclaim it and leave it at that. You do so as if you were taking care not to disturb anyone.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that is the great political task of this European Council. If you fail to take advantage of it, I fear that you will return here after the European Council in Nice, other presidencies will come around and this Parliament will be tempted to follow Oscar Wilde’s advice, which was that the best way to avoid temptation was to fall into it, and therefore not approve the Treaty of Nice when the time comes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"freierliche Proklamation"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples