Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010517.3.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the party statute and the resulting statute on political parties is of far greater significance than most people probably believe. We think that a party statute, in the truest sense of the word, is important for the unification of Europe and for democracy in Europe.
In conclusion I should like to say that whenever there are conflicts between us it is important for those conflicts to be resolved peacefully. This peaceful conflict resolution is only possible on the basis of the law. That is why it is important for there also to be recourse to the ECJ. I hope that a large majority of this House will vote in favour of this proposal tabled by Ursula Schleicher.
How then is the will of the European people to be expressed, if not through parties? As varied as our views may be, it is after all the parties who, in the end, give expression to our political will, even if this is often only after a very tough process of debate. That is why the significance of this party statute for the unification of our continent and for democracy in our continent cannot be overestimated, even if it is criticised here and there in the media or in extreme quarters of this House.
The last time that we debated this initiative – I myself was astonished that it is already nearly a year ago – was on 14 June 2000. Yesterday we had certain events here in this House and I would also say, Mr President, that we need to consider how we can prevent an anti-European minority from stopping progress in the future. That is why we need to amend our Rules of Procedure.
I should particularly like to express my appreciation – and for me as a democrat this was a cheering sight yesterday – of the fact that after yesterday's tumult four conscientious groups immediately realised their responsibility for Europe – the Christian Democrats, the EPP, the Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens – and sought a way out of the situation. That was a test of democracy here in the European Parliament and I would expressly thank the other groups who took that step with us.
I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to Ursula Schleicher, who by working unbelievably hard in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs under the Chairmanship of our esteemed colleague, Mr Napolitano, managed to forge agreement on majority positions. My dear Mrs Schleicher, you have done an excellent job here and people will always remember your name with gratitude when this party statute is adopted.
I should also, however, like to thank the Commission, in particular Commissioner Barnier and the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, for responding to the initiative taken by the four aforementioned groups in this Parliament and tabling this proposal. Even though it is still based on the old law – we are being heard – it is nevertheless a prerequisite for the Swedish Presidency to be able to decide. I should also like to acknowledge explicitly the very great effort that the Swedish Presidency is putting into this. Of course Mr Danielsson is not able to be here today. He was here yesterday, however, and we only have ourselves to blame for the fact that we are not able to debate this with him today. I regret this, and in the future we need to find a means of cooperating with the Council of Ministers to ensure that the Council is represented here in the European Parliament – and this is not to criticise the Swedish Presidency – throughout the week that we are in session.
We want more transparency. We want straightforward financial control, Commissioner Schreyer. That is why I was astonished – I must mention this now – to see a statement by Messrs Kuhne and Van Hulten in Euronews. They had not secured a majority in the Committee on Budgetary Control and were attacking us. That is completely inappropriate! If a rapporteur in a committee does not succeed in securing a majority in favour of his report then that is due to the rapporteur's own incompetence, and he should not defame others who are full of good intentions and wish to contribute to the overall result.
We want transparency and we also need this party statute so that we can integrate the parties from Central Europe. There, where democracy is only just being established, it is even more important than it is here for democratic structures to gain stability. I should like to refer to one further point: legal personality for the parties. Parliament's Bureau will, as you know, after consulting a committee of eminent persons, advise on the basis on which it will be decided which organisations are genuinely European parties which comply with the criteria. Obviously there will also always be the temptation of political opportunism to say yes or no to a political party. That is why the parties need to be endowed with legal personality, so that they are able to appeal against a decision if they believe that the rules have been violated and the right decisions have not been made. Legal certainty is actually the most important thing in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples