Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.4.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I should like to give you a little history lesson, concerning a famous French doctor, whose name was Coué and who invented a method – the Coué method – based on the principle of autosuggestion and self-hypnosis.
I now come to my concerns for democracy and transparency. I should like to give an example with regard to transparency: Article 133 on commercial policy. I have not seen the definitive texts – no one here has – but I have seen three pages, annexes 5 and 6, on commercial policy. I read them three times and I promise you that I did not fully understand them. Perhaps I am not clever enough, but the truth is that I could not fully understand them. Nevertheless, I did understand one thing: the European Commission would gain power; the Council would increase its control and Parliament would be left out. In an area as sensitive, as politically sensitive, as this, for which there is popular support, I consider this to be a serious political mistake. I felt the need to say this.
There are many things I could say about codecision. Where is this codecision? Almost no progress has been made on this. This is also extremely serious. I therefore believe that, on this point, as Members of the European Parliament and as representatives of the public, we have a genuine obligation to show our annoyance and, politically, to translate our annoyance into positive action. This is what I shall be taking a few words to do. I think that what was lacking at Nice was a European vision.
This was completely absent from the Nice Summit. It is national governments that are responsible for this and I am not blaming any particular government here – and I am not blaming the French Presidency more than any other presidency, as this is not the time or the place to do so. Mr Barón Crespo was quite right when he said that we must challenge the whole intergovernmental method. Governments are responsible for their image in international national public opinion and must look after this image. This is quite reasonable, but nevertheless, they do not bother about their image where international public opinion is concerned. A few do, but many do not make any effort. We should be aware that this leads to considerable nervousness in European thinking. We must therefore find a new method. We have seen the limits, which have become clearer and clearer. We now have the beginnings of a process.
I am somewhat less enthusiastic than others about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This has been described as a baby that is delivered at full term, but which is nevertheless a puny little thing. I had hoped for a healthy baby, and that is why we would need a method which is probably based on that of the Convention, but which has a much more ambitious mandate for the reform of the European institutions and above all, which functions more democratically. We cannot escape from having a widespread debate on the European Union’s objectives, on the European Union’s ambition on the world stage.
That is what I hope for. I take genuine pleasure in the consensus that I feel exists in this House. This is the first time that our analyses of the situation converge so strongly and I think that this is a positive indication for the years to come.
This doctor suggested that every one of us should say the following to ourselves, when we get up in the morning: today I feel better than I did yesterday but not as well as I will feel tomorrow.
I think that in politics, this is a valuable principle, but it should not be used too liberally. I welcome the fact that the various Members present today have not done so. I therefore welcome their speeches. I do not often feel this way but I am actually very happy with what has been said so far. My personal view of the Nice Summit is that it was a failure. I consider it to be a failure not only in terms of the European Union’s stated ambition to change the institutions so that they are capable of properly receiving the new Member States by improving the European Union’s efficiency, but I also consider it to be a failure in terms of another important aim, which has perhaps not been sufficiently highlighted, which is the rapprochement of the European Union and its citizens.
With regard to my first point, I think that everything necessary has been said on the matter. I would nevertheless like to mention a number of factors that concern the European Parliament, the European Parliament to which President Chirac very kindly paid tribute, but which has largely been forgotten in the Treaty of Nice.
For the first time – and I would remind you that I took part in Maastricht and in Amsterdam – Parliament has been given less weight in the European decision-making process. This is a very serious matter. Granted, the number of Members of the European Parliament has increased in relation to what had been envisaged, which goes a little way to allaying some of our fears, but the result will be more Members with fewer powers. I am not sure that this is a good thing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples