Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.9.1-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we all know how difficult it is to reform an administration: it is basically a case of replacing the current equilibrium, which is grounded in the inertia and routine of years and of habit with one that is different; excellent in principle but uncharted territory and always experimental in practice. This is, of course, a daunting challenge, and one that we welcome. For this reason in principle we support, without writing a blank cheque, of course, the initiative for the reform of the Commission. It is, however, worth remembering that this is not simply an administrative reform, but also a political reform, where in addition to the traditional balances it is necessary to be safeguard the traditional European institutional balance, in which issues of power are raised that cannot be dealt with in the same way as a reform of a more neutral nature.
So what is our main cause for concern? First of all, we need to know whether we are heading towards a strengthening of independence and autonomy in European public service, and I can offer good advice to those taking the decision on this matter, or whether the discretionary nature of career progression privatises the hierarchical relationship, making a European official very similar to an official in a multinational company. Furthermore, on what objective criteria are these competences to be awarded? How can we prevent merit from being watered down into benefits, into obedience to management, creating a structure of senior officials, some of whom will be quickly promoted, others more slow to rise up the ladder? And how can we prevent this polarity from taking on the form of national considerations, the defence of national interests, in opposition to the actual purpose of the Commission, which is responsible for protecting European interests? These are the political risks of these reforms, our fears and our concerns. It is your task, Commissioner Kinnock, and it requires your integrity and intellectual honesty to prove that these risks, these fears and concerns are unfounded. The onus of proof, however, is on the Commission and specifically on Commissioner Kinnock."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples