Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.2.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, when we discussed this last week in the Conference of Presidents, my group – the Liberal Democrats – voted to have a debate today and not to postpone it. I regret that my remarks today will mostly be about process rather than content, because I think that we still have not found the correct process. I would, however, like to salute the work the Commission has done this year and to acknowledge the enormous progress in the preparation of the launch of the euro; the very substantial progress on enlargement which we very much welcome; the work which is being done in south-eastern Europe; the break-through on the World Trade Organisation and the very stimulating programme on sustainable development. All of those and the work on the common area of justice and security are to the credit of the Commission. I very much agree with the focus of next year's priorities which are sensible and acceptable, particularly in that we need to work closely together on promoting the Community method in building the future of Europe.
There are, however, questions in the legislative programme to which we need answers. Why last year was only 45% of the programme processed by this time of the year and 55% not? How is it that 117 or 118 new items not foreseen were added? I do not mind flexibility – that is good in politics – but this seems rather more chaotic than one's definition of flexibility.
I fully respect the Commission's right of initiative, but I would urge that the Commission should not simply start in February with a general statement of priorities and then, in November, bring forward a specific work programme. We need an intensive dialogue between times and some intermediate staging-posts at which to make evaluations.
We believe, Mr President of the Commission, like you, in good governance and this Parliament will commit itself to being a high quality player in terms of the input and impact on co-legislation, but that requires criteria. We need to discuss with each other – and this is not an attempt to interfere with the right of initiative of the Commission – is the law necessary? Is it proportionate? Does it respect subsidiarity? Is it transparent and accountable? What are the options for implementation? Can we do some kind of regulatory impact assessment before we go down the line?
The Commission already has a wonderful process of consultation in place with social partners. Share this process with us as well, not because we want to interfere with your right to make the final call, but because we too are players and we cannot be left to one side or not get documents till the eve of a debate. Our President has communicated to you a scheme that we would commend. Our Conference of Presidents backs what she has said. Our Committee on Constitutional Affairs backs what she has said and if we can do that, next year we will discuss politics more and process less. We have got to get it right. We have to do this early to avoid a repetition of this unnecessary mutual incomprehension which helps none of us to bring good governance to the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples