Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Council/ French Presidency (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001212.6.2-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-12-Speech-2-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Elmar Brok2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have little to say today. Just under a year ago, you sent Mr Tsatsos and me to attend preparations for this Intergovernmental Conference. Today I can tell you that our mission was a failure. Our remit was to help make the European Union more democratic and more capable of action so that it would be ready to cope with the enlargement which we so long for. It is not more capable of action – on the contrary. The decision-making mechanism in the Council of Ministers has become far more complicated and the hurdles have been raised. It will now be much easier to form a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers. In the decisive areas in which we require qualified majority voting if the European Union is to be capable of action with 27 Member States, we failed dismally. On several counts we even lost ground. We have to admit that we have not complied with the principle of Amsterdam from the democratic viewpoint. Where qualified majority voting is enshrined in legislation, we have qualified majority voting. There are four fundamental areas, including structural policy, Article 133 and two other instances in which the European Parliament has been excluded from policy-making. In other words, the democratic deficit is now even greater. Plus, the number of seats in the European Parliament has been laid down against our own wishes and without consulting us. I find this situation intolerable. Individual interests have prevailed. The winners are those who asserted their national interests. And they have all gone home to celebrate. No-one claims to have done anything for Europe; on the contrary, everyone is saying: I blocked something to protect my own national interests from the veto. This method has seen its heyday, this system of a Europe of chancelleries is on its last legs. We need a transparent, democratic, citizens' Europe if we are to have any chance of developing. Our method must be a method which allows us to set up an Intergovernmental Conference through a convention at which parliamentarians, not chancelleries have their say if we are to take this continent forward. For the rest, when it comes to law-making, the future Council of Ministers must be an open, parliamentary organisation in which transparency and scrutiny have their place, because we cannot carry on as we are. The only consequence which I can draw from all this is that, when it comes to voting on the Treaty of Nice, my vote will be a no vote."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph