Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.8.2-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would like to start by thanking all the speakers, for they have made extremely useful contributions to this debate, which will serve as the foundation for more detailed analysis. I would, however, like to touch on a few basic points, a few of the points underlying this document, so that we will then be able to work together to improve and add to it.
An objection was raised regarding the direct responsibility of local authorities in the decision-making process. We must remember that, although the basis for this is the decentralisation, the subsidiarity debate, the objective is to take into account, in an organised and transparent way, the opinions of the end users and executors of the common policies while respecting the institutional structures of each Member State. We cannot interfere with the sacrosanct organisation of the Member States. They define the role of the meetings, they define their institutional system and, if we were to interfere, we would be committing an act of violation and, most importantly, we would be going against the principle of subsidiarity by which we are absolutely and closely bound.
I would just like to focus very briefly on some of Mr Swoboda’s objections because he has touched on points which must be dealt with. One of them is a point which might appear banal: consultation, civil society and resources. I do not think we are talking about huge resources, but it is clearly the European Parliament itself which will have to describe to us in the debate, agree upon and give us the resources we need. In my opinion, although we have not done any calculations during this phase, the amount will be a modest sum, but this is one of the areas that we must discuss together for Parliament is the budgetary authority.
A further point is the delegation of competences and agencies. I am talking about the delegation of practical and technical activities, not political delegation, for no delegation is permitted in these areas. They are subjects which must be dealt with by the institutional authorities.
Lastly, Mr Swoboda raised another, extremely important point: discussing what the Commission’s core tasks are, namely its political priorities. I would repeat that the Commission has undertaken – and it is no coincidence that I listed it among the annual commitments – to define its political priorities before Parliament each year. This is the practice we have presented, we have proposed and we believe we must follow closely so that, each year, as happens in the most democratic and transparent government structures, the political priorities are presented to Parliament and debated in this House.
That is why this White Paper, would appear, on the one hand, to be a genuinely innovative, substantial move towards democracy and transparency; on the other, some areas of it are still vague but this is because it is a proposal which we could not present as a finished product today: we need to work together to refine and develop it. It is the framework, an outline, and I would like to thank you for your criticism today which, I am sure, will be a great help to us in our future work.
I would like to end by thanking you and by saying simply that we must view all this precisely in the context of the three stages of the major European reform which we have outlined and which will be implemented over the next three years: firstly, reorganisation of the way we work internally; secondly, working together to plan how we should organise the major process of reforming the institutions, therefore Laeken; and thirdly, how to carry out the process of reforming the institutions.
I feel that today’s debate is good preparation for the other two stages. I would like to thank you because, in debating this issue today, we have initiated cooperation which will last for almost a year, until we present the final version of this White Paper and it becomes our self-regulation instrument, as Mr dell’Alba would call it. That is, it will become the code, the rule which will enable us to work effectively and get back to the true spirit and meaning of the Treaties, to get back to the core working role of each institution.
We have indeed set out a road map in this document, but this is the just the initial proposal: debates will continue to be held and it is only during the next stage that the final document will be produced. I have therefore taken note (and will continue to do so) of your comments because this is an initial proposal which needs everyone to contribute to it before the final version can be established.
The second point is the issue of the language and title etc.
of the White Paper. You are indeed right but, in all honesty, I have to say that I have read countless national laws and I have also endeavoured to make a great many. Mention just one which is written in language that the ordinary citizen can understand. They are all written in specialised language. We have done absolutely everything possible to use appropriate language but it is the concepts themselves whose technical nature is ultimately a problem for the ordinary citizen. Our task is precisely that of explaining, of bridging the gap, but we cannot allow proposals to be less precisely worded.
An example is the discussion on the term “governance”. I understand perfectly what Mr dell’Alba is saying, but the problem is that we do not use one single language: we are fortunate and proud to be able to use 11, and there will soon be 20. Therefore, we must endeavour to adapt. The title we have selected is not a title I like much, precisely because there is never a single term which translates appropriately into all the languages. We have a duty to understand each other as well as possible, even though we do not always manage to do so with the precision we would like.
Finally, relations with Parliament. My aim in delivering this speech today was not to please Parliament. What I have said to you today regarding Parliament’s role and relations with NGOs and civil society and their different functions are things I often say, things I have repeated a thousand times and things which I have attempted to put into practice transparently during the last 18 months in relations with this House. The fact that our relations are certainly more effective, more functional, smoother and more open than they were previously is precisely because I consider that the basis of the new Europe must be a fundamental role for Parliament.
Lastly, I have been criticised for many omissions, including the debate on the definition of the role of local authorities. As I recall, we imposed a limit on ourselves in this White Paper: we will not amend the Treaties. Therefore, it is not the purpose of the White Paper to change the delegation of powers. We must make this enormous effort to best adapt our way of working to our tasks but without amending the Treaties.
Then in the second phase, which is separate from the first phase, we will present the proposals for Laeken, and then, in the third phase, we will make an active contribution and we will have to work on the institutional reforms together.
After the Nice decisions had been taken, we had to take note of this and use a methodology which respected the necessary changes. However, remember that democracy is made of practices as well as rules. In my opinion, as we have seen from my speech and your debates, it is possible to improve the way we work without amending any legislation. I therefore believe that we must work together to that end.
A number of specific points emerged in the debate which I feel are particularly important. The issue of the delegation of powers to the Commission was mentioned. The Commission, consistently with what I said regarding not modifying legislation, is not asking for more powers but wants to organise its work more transparently and efficiently, getting back to the definitions in the founding Treaties of the Union, which, in laying down the organisation of the institutions, state that the Council and Parliament make decisions, the Commission executes policy (although not the technical detail) and Parliament monitors. When we have finished, the Commission will probably have less to do than it does at present, but the confusing part of the comitology practice, which extends processes and does not make the difference between our and your roles completely clear, will be avoided. In this case, Parliament and the Commission are equally involved because we are both mixed up in this comitology practice and we are both dissatisfied. Therefore, let us now say what we tell each other in our private conversations regarding the inadequacy of this process, here in this Chamber, for that way we can do something about it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples