Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – Mr Brok, you now have the floor for two-and-a-half minutes. You thought it would be three, but if I give you two-and-a-half, it will be at least three anyway.
Mr President, thank you for the warning. We must, I think, acknowledge that we have a broadly-structured discussion process before us, during which it will become apparent that the intergovernmental approach under the leadership of the Council will be unworkable with 27 Member States and that the executive leadership of the Commission, with Parliament as equal co-legislator, i.e. the classic Monnet approach, will therefore be the only way of ensuring that we are able to act within the European Union.
However, Madam President-in-Office, your comment that you were looking forward to the contribution of the European Parliament has already aroused my suspicions, because the European Parliament has no contribution to make here; according to my reading of the Nice paper, the Council, Parliament and Commission are supposed to shape the overall debate together. In other words, we are not your sub-contractors, we are joint project managers of this broad, European dialogue. As far as I can see, there is as yet no guarantee of this whatsoever in the preparations, which I find somewhat telling.
In my opinion, there are three stages: the broad, public debate led – and I mean led jointly – by the three institutions, which must be held over the course of this and next year, but which must also accompany the overall process through to the end. Then comes the preparation of the subject matter which, in my view, should follow on logically within the framework of a convention or whatever else you want to call it, whereby it is important for Laeken and for us, Madam President-in-Office, not only for the convention to be set up but for there to be no doubt as to the status of its outcome, by which I mean that it will not produce one of many papers but
paper which will be the basis for negotiation for the decisive round of Heads of Government.
I should like to point out that, as Hungary and the Czech Republic will be using the enlargement agreements to deal with institutional matters, precisely because they have no voice in the European Parliament, the question of improved decision-making procedures in the Council should be taken into consideration during enlargement negotiations, meaning that enlargement negotiations also form part of the post-Nice process.
At the same time, I should like to pick up on the question of the timetable. I, like many of my fellow members, are worried about wrapping this up in 2004 in the middle of the European election campaign. I think it would therefore be a good idea if we used this year and next year for the broad public process and started on the convention in the second half of next year, so that we have the whole of 2003 for negotiations and can wrap things up at the end of 2003 or by the beginning of 2004 at the latest so that the outcome can be discussed during the European election campaign.
This would allow us to initiate a public plebiscite on the outcome and to seal the dialogue, as it were, with the expression of the will of the people of this European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples