Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.6.2-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the purpose of the Intergovernmental Conference was to prepare the European Union so that it would be able to operate after enlargement. I think the European Parliament is right to base its evaluation on two criteria, namely efficiency and democratisation. As the European Parliament's representatives, Mr Brok and I fought for both, but without the required results.
We do, of course, admit that some progress was made on both counts. As far as efficiency is concerned, qualified majority voting was introduced in several instances, Parliament was granted the right to litigate in matters of a constitutional nature and the system of reinforced cooperation was made more practicable. Similarly, a number of positive moves were made as regards the European Commission. As far as democratisation is concerned, the points worth noting are that codecision has been extended on several counts and the European legislator has been authorised to define the status of European political parties and crucial preventive measures to defend democracy and freedom in the Member States.
Unfortunately, however, for the European Parliament, the shortcomings in the Treaty have been exacerbated. Unanimity has been abolished for a whole series of legislative issues, but without giving Parliament codecision powers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has not received so much as a mention in the Treaty. The European Parliament has too little say in the reinforced cooperation procedure. Fundamental areas still require unanimity. The decision-making system in the Council may well incorporate the principle of a double majority, but it has become somewhat complicated and has upset the balance between large and small Member States.
Finally, the European Parliament will face a huge dilemma when it comes to make its final appraisal of the Treaty at the beginning of next year due to the clause on post-Nice developments. This clause adopts the European Parliament's opinion that further development of the European Union will be impossible using the intergovernmental method applied in the past. This method has had it. The clause on post-Nice developments, for all its exaggerated and wholly inaccurate eulogy of the Treaty, does give some light at the end of the tunnel, to quote my friend Mr Hänsch. Given the procedure described, new proposals for the Europe of tomorrow need to be drafted by political and social bodies – mainly the national parliaments and the European Parliament. Without this clause on post-Nice developments, the European Parliament would, I think, have been unable to accept the Treaty. With this clause, it is simply a poor treaty. However, careful thought and consideration are needed before the European Parliament decides to reject it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples