Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.2.2-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in the 51 years of its existence, since the beginning of the European unification process and since the Robert Schuman Declaration, the European Union can lay claim to a considerable success story. In addition to establishing the common market, the single currency and the beginnings of a common foreign and security policy, we have also become an area of peace, justice and security, and in this we are a model for many regions of the world. But why is it that our citizens do not see the actions of the various institutions of the European Union in a proper light, as we might expect? Why is it that they so often fail to evoke a positive response? The question that immediately comes to mind is of course why the European Union has such a poor external image and why it is so bad at initiating and implementing its policies.
These questions of course provide the basis for the Commission's White Paper of 25 July of this year, and we are delighted that the Commission President, Mr Prodi, is here to discuss this issue with us for the second time today and has just offered us cooperation within an interinstitutional working party. I think this is an excellent suggestion that we should accept promptly and in a constructive spirit.
Another question is why our public image in the EU Member States is so patchy – I do not wish to say dismal – yet it cannot really be said that the European Union stumbles from one failure to the next. I think that a key point here is what the Commission says at the beginning of the White Paper: it should go back to concentrating on its core activities. The Commission should not allow itself to get tangled up in a mass of individual proposals and decisions so that in terms of overall policy strategy you cannot see the wood for the trees.
As I see it, there are a few more questions that we need to consider in some depth before we will find the appropriate answers. We certainly recognise that the Commission – and I think that all the institutions need to do this – has subjected and is continuing to subject its actions to a critical review process, after which it can then adopt any changes necessary after discussion with us.
We also support the Commission's intention to focus on particular areas, but we have to say that the Commission should in that case undertake appropriate work with the press. It should make it very clear to the public what European legislation consists of and how it has to be implemented.
There is also a second important issue here. There is no point in the Commission setting up its own substructures in various fields, and I believe that it has in fact largely ceased to do this. It should make use of existing public agencies at national, regional and local level to implement Community legislation. There is no need for the Commission to arrange direct involvement in every local district and in every medium-sized town. Although it is important to keep citizens informed, suitable forms of interaction should be used. Framework legislation produced by the Commission should provide for implementation at regional and national level, and it seems to me that the Commission's first proposal in the 25 July White Paper blurs the distinction between the various levels too much. So what is needed? Joint regulation? Open coordination? To what extent are European agencies needed? We need to address all these questions in our interinstitutional working party."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples