Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.8.2-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. I can agree on behalf of my group with much of what has been said today, Mr President. I just wonder why it was not set out this clearly in the White Paper which you submitted, unfortunately at a time at which we were unable to discuss it directly. A White Paper on European governance really should have been submitted to Parliament first.
You said, Mr President, that Parliament represents the people of the Union. Correct. But if you look at the White Paper, this premise is hardly anywhere to be found, at least not in the prominent and leading place in which it belongs. I do not say this just to blow our own trumpet but because we should not spread the illusion harboured by many a non-governmental organisation that the parliamentary and democratic process could, to a certain extent, be replaced by dialogue with civil society. It cannot replace it but it can and it must complement it. That is one important aspect.
That brings me to my second point. Yes, our group is in favour of strengthening consultation with civil society, whatever your interpretation of that concept may be. I just wonder, Mr President, if the Commission has the staff it needs in order to do so to the extent claimed here? At least, you say nothing about how you intend to bring this off. Secondly, you barely mention how you intend to liaise with Parliament here. Yes, you say that Parliament has already started this process. Quite right. But we need to strengthen it. We need to approach things jointly, as you said today, because our citizens react to the European Union, rather than to individual institutions. That is why I call on you to table proposals based on your concept of how a joint, efficient, feasible dialogue can be conducted because what is depicted here will result in a plethora of consultation processes and that contradicts the very principle of efficiency which you stand for. But we are prepared to discuss this with you.
Thirdly, delegating decisions. You are quite right, Mr President; a parliament which wants to pass every detailed decision and regulation is a very stupid parliament. But what is the position on the call back or fall back position which Parliament keeps calling for? You say nothing about it in your White Paper. Are you for or against it? You surely do not entertain the notion that Parliament will agree to delegate regulatory powers and jurisdiction without the facility to call them back if things go wrong? We have already had our fingers burned once with the Lamfalussy report. Some Commissioner or other – I do not want to name names – did not approve of this process of cooperation, even in the case of delegation, hence our scepticism and suspicion. Not because we reject it, but because we still cannot condone the practice of the Commission at this point in time.
Mr President, you refer several times in your White Paper to getting back to basics, on focusing on basics once more. But you do not define them – basics since when? Basics for the Commission and the European Union are not the same today as they were 20 years ago and they will be different in the future. I do wonder, with many of the Commission’s proposals, if these really are the basics for the European Union. In other areas – just think of asylum, immigration and so on, you are faced with new basics. To think backwards and say, we must get back to yesterday’s basics is hardly the right policy for the European Union. But I admit that you are right and I hope that the Commission will define what it sees as basics for the future, for the next ten years because that is an ongoing decision which we want to discuss with the Council and the Commission. Agenda setting, defining political priorities year on year, is not just the job of the Council and the Commission, it is also the job of the European Parliament.
So much for the critical points and now there is no time left for the other points. But I think that it is more use to you if we voice our criticism and then offer to hold a dialogue with you over the coming months so that we can bring about a joint result."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples