Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, to make the debate on the future of the European Union – which is beginning at long last – truly effective, we need a sound institutional triangle. If you do, furthermore, take on board the proposal from our fellow Member, Klaus Hänsch, the proposals you presented this morning should enable us to re-establish the natural complicity which there should be between both our institutions in order to have successful dialogue within the institutional triangle. If we wish to pursue this route, however, it is not useful to condemn the behaviour of the Council in this or that instance. We need a strong Council; we need a Council that participates fully in the institutional triangle. There are reforms which could be undertaken without revising the Treaty. Let us support any such initiatives within the Council rather than resorting to procedural arguments to deplore the non-attendance of the Council, as Mr Poettering did earlier.
The second point I would like to discuss, Mr President, is the White Paper on governance. This is something we are impatiently awaiting. We suppose that this will foreshadow the debate to be held on one of the items in Annex IV, on the distribution of competences. I should however at this early stage like to draw your attention to one point. This morning you stated your wish to see a Europe that was closer to its citizens. We feel that there is indeed room for improvement in this respect, if we wish to make progress. We hear all too often in our constituencies and in our own countries of the problems that people have in getting their projects validated by the Commission. The unwieldiness of the procedures and the concentration of projects do not make a useful contribution in this respect.
My third point relates to the debate on the future of the European Union. I feel that, this morning, you have introduced the elements which make it possible for us to approach dialogue under acceptable conditions. We must indeed raise questions as to content; institutional matters will come after. The issue of the political clout of the European Union in the world and the issue of solidarity, or what I prefer to call the issue of the social model, are indeed critical matters on which we must again find the resolve to live together within the European Union.
In terms of method, we welcome the fact that you have taken on board the idea that, in the structured dialogue phase, the four partners participating in the convention will have to again find their capacity to work together. We need to distinguish between bodies that are dedicated to debate and bodies that are dedicated to deliberation. The convention should remain a forum for deliberation because experiences in Amsterdam and Nice have proved that the representatives of the European Parliament are not allocated enough of a place at the IGC and because we prefer the convention model and we are convinced that all proposals may be drawn up in this context. There is no divide between issues relating to human rights which might lie within the jurisdiction of political bodies and issues relating to institutional aspects which would lie within the sole jurisdiction of diplomatic bodies. Nice showed that the convention model makes it possible to advance more quickly, in a more structured manner, and enhancing much more our collective mode of operation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples