Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.7.3-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President I wish to focus my speech on three basic points. The President-in-Office of the Council addressed the issue of closer cooperation and said that we are on the way to reaching consensus on this matter. I should like to ask both Mr Védrine and President Prodi what role is envisaged or what role they advocate for the Commission in the field of closer cooperation in the second and third pillars.
The second issue concerns the overall agreement already considered here by my colleague and Chairman of the Socialist Group, Enrique Barón Crespo, which is, fortunately, part of the resolution that the European Parliament will surely adopt tomorrow. Today, neither in the Council nor in Parliament do we have distribution of power that is proportionate to size and to the number of citizens in each Member State. What we have is a balance underpinned by the principle of the dual legitimacy that exists between the Union of States and the Union of citizens.
According to how one sees the matter, however, what is being prepared now is a change to this balance and an increase in the representation of the larger countries, both in the Council and in Parliament. This is neither fair nor acceptable. I therefore wish to insist once again that within the Council, it is the double majority method that should be adopted for decision making, since it is not only more understandable but also fairer. I would also reiterate that the current method should be maintained in the European Parliament and that this linear reduction should be implemented when new Members enter Parliament. I believe that this latter approach is more balanced, fairer and takes account of an historical reality which those seeking to integrate Europe cannot ignore. This historical reality is that the Member States exist and there is a relationship between these states and their citizens, whereas there is not such a strong relationship between the citizens and Europe itself.
Lastly, there is the issue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The President-in-Office of the Council spoke with sincerity, for which I thank him. He said that some countries or governments even say they will not formally recognise the Charter if it is incorporated into the Treaties. It is unacceptable that such a statement should be made. What is a member of the European public supposed to think when they hear that governments are prepared to draw up certain documents but do not agree on these documents having legal force and status? What kind of message are we sending to candidate countries if we say to them that in order to join the single market they must accept whatever we impose on them, and yet we do not require them to ratify the Charter of Fundamental Rights? In other words, we are sending them the message that in Europe we treat consumers better than we treat the citizens of the European Union themselves. We therefore encourage and urge the Presidency once again to make every effort to ensure that there is at least one reference to the Treaties in Nice because this would be the best tribute we could pay to the work of the Members of the European Parliament, the Commission and even the representatives of the governments involved in the Convention on drafting the Charter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples