Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-179"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:White paper on the reform of European governance2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010904.8.2-179"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-04-Speech-2-1802
lpv:speaker	lp:Nelly Maes2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Volksunie (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 vice-chair; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-19--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, President of the Commission, your White Paper has been widely praised, but we were disappointed in it, because it has not proved the important document that we had expected after your promises. It is difficult to find any specific detail in the current reform of the Commission, in the fundamental declarations in Nice on the future of the Union or in the new IGC. We are therefore searching for the meaning. Could it perhaps be the case that differences of opinion in the board of Commissioners and pressure from some Member States have combined to reduce the scope of this White Paper? We also support greater involvement of mainstream society. That is positive. However, as Democrats, we are concerned about the sections on better policy and better legislation, and on the orientation of policy initiatives and institutions. We attach special importance to institutional equilibrium. Other speakers have already made that point, for example as regards the impact on the powers and role of the European Parliament of a greater use of “soft law” instruments. In addition, we wonder whether the new regulatory bodies we are promised and the proposed external executive bodies can be adequately monitored. We have not forgotten the whole chapter involving the BTB. Neither have you, I hope. We are positively disposed towards the proposal that the Council and the European Parliament should play an equal role in supervising the way in which the Commission fulfils its executive task. But I have other concerns. As a regionalist, I feel bound to say that the importance of the region has actually declined. There is virtually no trace here of ‘bottom-up governance’. We cannot find the ‘multi-level governance’ in which all administrative strata are involved – which was also asked for by Mr Duff. The differences of opinion in the board of Commissioners have obviously actually led to regional involvement on the final decision-making being scrapped. The Commission limits itself to a more systematic dialogue with European and national associations of regional and local authorities at an early stage in decision-making. In contrast to the draft White Paper and the report of the Commission’s preparatory working party 4 C, provision is no longer made for a differentiation in regional involvement depending on the type of Member State: unitary, decentralised, regionalised or federal. As a result, we are now going backwards compared to the present constitutional powers already enjoyed by some regions in certain Member States, for example Belgium. You can imagine that this will not excite much enthusiasm in our regions for the governance outlined here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph