Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, As soon as Nice has finished, it will the European Parliament's turn to reply to two historic questions, questions which affect both the future of the European Union and its own political credibility. The stated aim of this review is to design more efficient institutions which will be able to cope with an enlarged Europe and, at the same time, to reduce the democratic deficit which certainly exists.
Unfortunately, the text of the Treaty, as formulated to date by the Intergovernmental Conference, does not satisfy either of the objectives of the review and, consequently, does not satisfy either of the two evaluation criteria set by the European Parliament.
In order to ensure that the institutions operate more efficiently, we called for Council decisions to be taken by qualified majority rather than unanimously, although we did, of course, exclude all issues of constitutional significance. This has borne only meagre fruit, as Elmar Brok and Mr Méndez de Vigo explained earlier. However, the European Parliament is especially disappointed as regards the major issue of the democratisation of the European Union. From a democratic point of view, it goes without saying that qualified majority voting in the Council should go hand in glove, as far as legislative acts are concerned, with codecision on the part of the European Parliament. This does not always hold true. In the case of enhanced cooperation, no agreement has yet been reached on making provision for assent by the European Parliament in order to start the procedure.
Finally, not only has the Charter of Fundamental Rights not yet been incorporated into the text of the Treaty; it has barely even been agreed to mention it in Article 6. Of course, I am delighted about the positive aspects, such as the issue of European political parties and Article 7, which have already been commented on. However, Nice will not be accepted on the basis of these positive aspects. Obviously, we shall be under great pressure to accept Nice come what may, with talk of the threat of institutional crisis if there is no Treaty. However, I fear that the crisis will be worse if the European Parliament caves in and accepts as adequate what is clearly an inadequate Treaty.
The national parliaments are waiting for our opinion. We have an historic responsibility. Let us not compound the disappointment which Nice will cause if it is unsuccessful by giving the people huge cause for disappointment in Parliament. Nice, if it is unsuccessful, can make amends, but if Parliament proves to be unreliable, it will take years to wipe the slate clean. A European Union without a credible parliament is a transient and a poor state of affairs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples