Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-029"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:White paper on reform of European governance2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011002.2.2-029"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-02-Speech-2-0302
lpv:speaker	lp:Christa Randzio-plath2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Prodi, the White Paper calls on Parliament to enhance its role in feeding the views of its electors into the political debate. But this means, Mr Prodi, and I must stress this point, that in the twenty-first century democracy will continue to be associated with the word ‘parliamentary’ and not with the word ‘consultative’. We do not want to go back to the pre-parliamentary democracy era and the White Paper should not be associated with that idea. Framework legislation and the use of other regulatory mechanisms can only be something positive if they are linked with appropriate guarantees. In the case of framework legislation the effect of these guarantees should be to ensure that the power to define is not handed over to some agency or other, but is reserved to Parliament. It is not only Parliament's privilege to insist on this, it is Parliament's duty. You say that you want more transparency and consultation, but whom are you excluding and whom are you including? Associations and non-governmental organisations that can pay for expertise will be better off than those who do not have these resources. And in practice some people will surely be better able to make their voice heard than others. Will this not mean that we are making the playing field for the various parts of civil society in the European Union still more uneven? I believe in a level playing field for the various actors and institutions. I believe that the White Paper is not clear enough about this. I call on you to make this clear, because I have to say that when it comes to financial market legislation, the implementation of the Commission's financial action plan tends to give one co-legislator a stronger position than the other co-legislator, the European Parliament. That does not seem a very promising road to go down. This imbalance needs to be rectified, and at the next intergovernmental conference Article 202 of course needs to be amended by creating a call-back right. However, the Commission could also demonstrate its good will at this stage and make it clear that it does not intend to surreptitiously change the balance between the institutions. We, as a parliament, owe that much to society, because parliamentary activity does not just mean controlling things, but also shaping them. I do not want to leave that task to a variety of committees chaired by people without any democratic legitimacy and who are not co-elected by Parliament, as is the case in the United States for example."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph