Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.2.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I too would like to thank the Belgian Presidency, and I hope that we shall all have a really successful summit in Laeken. Today we are debating the Commission's work programme, and I wish to say that my group supports the general resolution by the various political groups concerning this programme. Why? Because there is an interinstitutional agreement between two institutions, and I do not think this House is being unreasonable in expecting the Commission to adhere to the undertakings it has given Parliament.
Mr Prodi, in your White Paper on European Governance there is much talk about how Europe could be better governed. However, you are not performing one of the most elementary tasks, that is to say the presentation of a legislative programme. I heard this morning that an e-mail with an attachment arrived last night. The text that I am familiar with so far is a work programme which as far as I can see is simply full of platitudes. It includes announcements about comprehensive packages of measures, other measures are to be proposed, specific measures are being prepared, and so it goes on for 20 pages. But what the Council and Parliament need to know above all, and in good time, is what legislation will actually be presented, and, first and foremost, why. We need to know what the basis for this legislation is so that we can act in unison here.
I must not forget to point out that the national parliaments, which also have a certain role in this process, and a not inconsiderable one at that, have some problems with the whole process. This is a problem that has to be solved, Mr Prodi.
I also have a few more comments about your communication for the Laeken Summit. I consider that it contains some extremely interesting ideas that are worth supporting. It is true to say that limiting ourselves strictly to the four priorities identified in Nice would weaken the credibility of the Convention, in other words the list of issues to be addressed needs to be widened in order to meet the public's expectations and to ensure that the enlarged Union will have a viable future.
However, I also have to say that with this paper too, I kept asking myself why the Commission was showing so little courage and vision in the run-up to such an important summit. What will the public think if the Commission talks about defending a certain European ideal, as it does in the document, in such an unambitious way? What ideal are we talking about then? What is the process of deepening that we are all in favour of to be like, and why should it just relate to democracy, as the document suggests? I really find it rather mysterious why, with an eye to Laeken and particularly when we are envisaging convening a historic convention, we do not quite simply say, yes, our common goal is to create a truly democratic Europe. Furthermore, Mr Prodi, I expect, in view of all this, that in future the Commission will act far more energetically in its capacity as the motor of European integration."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples