Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission. You have said a great deal today about programming aspects. I should like to refer to your closing words, in which you spoke about Parliament and the excellent role played by parliamentarians. Fine words, Mr President, but too vague. I therefore call on you to make some sort of concrete statement. The fact of the matter is this: we want a strong Commission, because we believe that intergovernmental cooperation is no basis for a Europe of tomorrow – at least not primarily. We therefore expect you too to bear in mind that we need to strengthen parliamentarianism and parliamentary debate. As a general precept, I am sure you agree with that. It is just, Mr President, that when your Vice-President, Mr Barnier, states during a recent discussion in committee that we should propose a sort of forum for the post-Nice process in which everyone is involved – members of parliament, civil society – then I say no, not if this forum is in lieu of a convention. Mr President, we want a convention, a convention of Members of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. That is what we want and it is here that we ask for your clear, unequivocal support.
I know, Mr President, that the Commission is critical – both directly and indirectly – of Parliament's weaknesses. Parliament does have its weaknesses, it is true. But the weaknesses of this Parliament and of parliamentarianism at European level need to be overcome by strengthening this Parliament, not weakening it still further.
That brings me to my next point: you proposed again today – and I admit you are right, something must be done – to publish a White Paper on the question of good governance. The concept of good governance is somewhat of a problem in itself. I would rather refer to democratic governance. The democratic decision-making procedure needs to be strengthened, I agree with you there. It must also be broadened. Democracy also includes dialogue with civil society. I admit that one hundred per cent. And this is where we, as parliamentarians, must do more. But, here again, the sixty thousand dollar question is: is civil society being involved at the expense of stronger parliamentary democracy? Is civil society the guardian, so to speak, of parliamentary debate and the decision-making process? Here too you must make a clear, unequivocal statement in support of Parliament.
That brings me to the question of self-regulation, another new buzz word. Self-regulation is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "cooperative decision-making model". No, Mr President. Parliament must take decisions, the Council must take decisions, the parliamentary committees must take decisions. Of course, we must ensure that this decision-making process is transparent and public and not, as is the case at present, opaque and private – that applies in particular to the Commission and lobby groups. We must engage in dialogue and debate with these interest groups, we must accept their advice and take account of their arguments, that we must. But we can hardly expect the fox to guard the chickens. Are those whom we perhaps want to control to be allowed to set their own rules in the future? I take a different view. That is like saying that the feedingstuffs industry and agricultural lobby should decide on the organisation of the agricultural markets. It is out of the question and that is not our position.
Another brief comment in this context: there is a growing trend towards so-called interpretive Commission communications. In other words, Council and Parliament decisions are subsequently interpreted by the Commission, where possible, in the way which the various interest groups perhaps want them interpreted. That too is a slippery slope. The Commission submits proposals. It has the right of initiative. I admit that. But it is the parliamentary committees which must take the decisions and there should be no ex-post corrections in later communications. If there are, then the matter should be referred to the European Court of Justice.
Finally, President Prodi, we expect to be inundated with Commission proposals. But we also expect the Commission to respect parliamentarianism, just as we respect the Commission. We expect you to be as keen to strengthen Parliament as we are to strengthen the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples