Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-038"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission work programme for 2001/Nice2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.2.2-038"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-0392
lpv:speaker	lp:José María Gil-robles Gil-delgado2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the lack of a concrete Commission working programme for the coming institutional reform is a source of concern to Parliament, as we have seen. It seems that we will have to await the Laeken guidelines in order to get under way. But the debate on the future of the Union has been under way for months now, with speeches by various Heads of State and Government, and Parliament is already working actively. Passivity on the part of the Commission, if confirmed, would be very serious in this preparatory stage, because we all know that it has a great responsibility: to act as a guardian of the Community spirit. And this responsibility has to take the form of concrete proposals and not of vague references to a White Paper or other such matters. On the other hand, I am genuinely pleased that this morning President Prodi has reaffirmed his support for the comments which Commissioner Barnier made in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In other words, I am pleased that he has reaffirmed that the proposal for a forum is not a step backwards in relation to the previous convention, but an ambition for a convention which functions better. Well, if that is the case, why change the name? The Europeans already know what a convention is and have been able to observe its results, which have been transparent and fruitful, compared to the shameful achievements of the last Intergovernmental Conference. Its opponents do not reject the name. They reject the convention itself. Let us therefore look to public opinion, and forget name changing, so that Parliament and the Commission can fight side by side. Let us not back down in the face of those people who do not want a democratic and transparent Europe, but an opaque Europe made up of diplomats. The Union does not need a diminished Commission. It needs an active and courageous Commission, which is what we are calling for today."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph