Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, on behalf of my group I welcome the tone of the Council's contribution and the content of the Commission's contribution. It is early days yet for us to have a definitive idea of how this process will develop, but I do believe that you, Madam President, have been excessively cautious and I would like to raise one or two questions with you and invite you to respond to them at the end of the debate.
You have said that you look forward to seeing the European Parliament contribution and, of course, the resolution in May. I join you in that. You have said that you can see advantages and disadvantages in the convention method and I am aware that many in the Council would share that view. Could you please expand on that and not leave it in suspended animation? Part of the purpose of this dialogue is for us to seek rational solutions if people perceive disadvantages in what we propose. So please could you let us have your assessment of the pros and cons to which you have referred.
You have referred to the four dimensions in the Nice annex, the debate on competencies, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments. You also, if I understood the translation correctly, believe that the Treaty should be simplified but without changing its content. Is it possible to look at competencies, the role of national parliaments and the role of the charter and not change the content of the Treaty? That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Like the other institutions, the European Parliament is currently considering how things might be presented for the next Intergovernmental Conference. I and my group strongly believe that the convention method could be adopted. This Parliament has a democratic legitimacy. It is rooted and founded in the European treaties. We are not a mendicant seeking alms at the European door. We have a right – in fact a duty – of participation. I believe the convention method open to the Member States, national parliaments, the Commission and perhaps ideally also to candidate states can provide a very good framework – not necessarily a single-choice menu, but a framework of rational and consistent choices – and an Intergovernmental Conference can then be invited to proceed.
Finally, without anticipating the future too much, my own group feels sufficiently strongly about this participation that if Parliament was inappropriately excluded or diminished in its institutional role we would consider recommending that it should not give any opinion on an Intergovernmental Conference.
That would be a difficult decision and I hope it will not be necessary but it is a constitutional requirement under Article 48 that this House should give an opinion before an IGC even though, regrettably, we have no right of assent after an IGC. That is something we should note at this stage because full democratic participation is vital."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples