Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.4.3-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the threshold of a summit, under the Belgian Presidency, that will be very important in the history of the European Community. Geographically speaking, Belgium is at the centre of the European Union. I hope it can also manage to be at the Union’s political centre.
Lastly, Madam President, with regard to the CFSP and the fight against terrorism, you will all be aware that we are all working very hard, using the emergency procedure, on producing a European Search and Arrest Warrant, a framework decision on terrorism, a fight against money laundering, which is also important and related to terrorism, and we think that a joint effort by all should be made on this matter. But our actions must also show that we have learned from our mistakes and shortcomings, and there is a very serious shortcoming for which the European Union should accept responsibility, and I think that at Laeken an important step could be taken by making defence one of the issues we should address in the Convention and which are to be incorporated into the Treaties.
Finally, Madam President, we have very important political responsibilities where Afghanistan is concerned. The first hostages of terrorism have been the Afghans and above all the Afghan women. And in the Middle East we have to continue in our attempt to find a solution that will ensure the security of the State of Israel’s borders, but which will also allow the Palestinian State to function and to be respected.
With regard to the agenda that Mr Michel has presented, Madam President, I would firstly like to state my group’s support for the Leinen, Méndez de Vigo and Kaufmann reports, that deal with the fundamental issue of the future of the European Union.
Firstly, we have always supported the idea that there should be a Convention, because this has proved to be the method that allows for public debate, and for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be drawn up democratically. With this in mind, we think that this is the best method to implement: a Convention that is politically solid, that has democratic support and which is methodologically consistent with its objectives.
For this reason, I would like to make some practical suggestions to Mr Michel with regard to the statements he has made. Mr Michel, in this instance, Parliament would be grateful if you could act in the same way you did with the Convention for the Charter of Fundamental Rights with regard to appointing a President. Propose a President at Laeken and let the Convention elect the President. I think that this is a question of good manners, which, in a democracy, are very important.
Secondly, I also think that it is significant that you speak about the dual democratic legitimacy of the Union, because it currently seems as if civil society has nothing to do with MEPs or with members of the Member State parliaments. It is important that we should open up to and consult with the organisations that enrich civil society, however, we must not forget that democratic legitimacy is essentially achieved through elected representatives. In this regard, Mr Michel stated that the membership of the Bureau or Presidium of the Convention remains open. If the President and the troika have a presence in the Bureau, the European Parliament’s proposal will make sense – two MEPs and two representatives from Member States – for this will provide a balance between the two branches of democratic legitimacy.
We also insist that there should be a wide-ranging and coherent proposal; we do not want to have to choose between a selection of sample proposals. And in relation to the potential time gap mentioned by Mr Michel, we would like to see a proposal, under the Greek Presidency, that brings the work to a conclusion; we do not want the outcome of the Convention to be postponed indefinitely. It must have a follow-up and must lead to a decision from the European Council.
With regard to the Commission, Mr Prodi, I would urge you, with regard to the responsibility you have as guardian of the Treaties, one of the Commission’s functions, to make proposals as quickly as is possible. There are two points in Declaration No 23, for which the Commission has full jurisdiction, the simplification of the Treaties and the division of competences. Some time before, you should table a proposal that we can debate. This is one of the Commission’s functions that cannot be taken away.
With regard to governance, a related issue, we would ask you not to damn us with faint praise, as the British say, and which we Spanish might express as ‘killing us with affection’ because there are some really interesting proposals, but now the Handelkern report is being published. Why can we not sit down together and reach an interinstitutional agreement on governance? We also have a democratic responsibility and we cannot consent to legislative power being taken away from us though the back door. This is a serious warning."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples