Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro sincerely for their excellent report. Our group believes it is important that we should also reach agreement between the groups in fundamental questions because we, the European Parliament, must be the guarantor of Europe as a community. We therefore have a joint responsibility. It was therefore also good that our two fellow MEPs presented a joint report.
Madam President-in-Office, let me conclude by saying that you have achieved something in your presidency. There will come another time when we shall have to assess matters of, for example, transparency and similar questions. For our group, however, the crucial thing is how the future will go on to be shaped. We are not expecting Gothenburg to bring any obstacles that will prevent a decision in Laeken about a convention, but we expect Gothenburg to show the way for good decisions in Laeken so that we can proceed into the European future on the basis of a convention.
Madam President-in-Office, I am not giving you a present, but not because I have anything against red as a colour. It is a nice colour. The content, when it is used politically, is sometimes not so acceptable. You spoke yourself of a red scarf, which is not always such a good example. However, we wish you much success for Gothenburg! If you are successful, it will be our joint success. So best wishes for Gothenburg!
This contribution by Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro is also a contribution to a neighbourly relationship, because partners who are very close together geographically often find it hard to work with each other. So this was a good Spanish-Portuguese contribution to the development of Europe, another positive effect.
I naturally welcome the fact that the President-in-Office is present here today. So far as the Commission is concerned, we always have the pleasure of its presence. Madam President-in-Office, we appreciate that. It is true that we were rather critical earlier. I hope that your positive example in being here today will also be an example for future presidencies. We hope that the presence of the Council of Ministers here in the European Parliament will improve decisively and that we will also come to an agreement on that.
Turning now to Nice, as many have said, we are not satisfied with Nice. The Council’s decision-making procedure is more complex than before. There has been no significant extension of majority decision-making in the Council. Above all – and this is very critical for us – there is no significant extension of codecision between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We are actually rather surprised that in his speech, which of course also has positive aspects, the French Prime Minister says nothing about extending the powers of the European Parliament, but only says, and I quote: “The competences of the Strasbourg Assembly should be more clearly defined.” We expect the Prime Minister of a great country to speak out for greater democracy in Europe, for more powers for the European Parliament.
What we need – as Mr Brok has already mentioned – are clear competences of parliamentary responsibility. The European Parliament is the Commission’s parliamentary watchdog at European level and in matters of legislation is of equal standing with the Council of Ministers. It is the duty of national parliaments to exercise more control over their own governments. We do not want a congress of national MPs, but we want the European Parliament to discharge its responsibility in Europe and our national colleagues to do so at national level!
The second and third pillars remain in place after Nice. We must correct that. That is intergovernmental cooperation, if we now look to the future. Intergovernmental cooperation does not simply mean that we are incapable of action, but intergovernmental cooperation also means that there is no democratic parliamentary control and no review by the European Court of Justice. Intergovernmental cooperation is therefore not only an expression of a lack of ability to act, but it is also in contradiction with our values of democracy and the rule of law. We must therefore change it for the future!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples