Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-031"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Presentation by Mr Prodi of the Commission work for the 2002 programme and the communication on the future of the European Union and strengthening the Community method2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011211.2.2-031"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-12-11-Speech-2-0322
lpv:speaker	lp:James Elles2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, although I agree with many of the comments that have been made today about the year 2001 having been reasonably successful, there are real grounds for concern about the way in which this debate is taking place today. Firstly, as a matter of principle, we have the institutional agreement of 1993, which says that the programme should be presented by October, and then our agreement of 2000, under which we are to have a broad debate about the programme before it is implemented. Neither of these have been fulfilled in this particular case. Why is this totally insufficient? Firstly, the programme which is presented to us lacks focus. It is somewhat difficult to see priorities when you have seven of them and, within the priorities, lots of themes which are generating new ideas. If you have more than three priorities, as Bob Zoellick, the USTR, said, you lose yourself in detail and you can never focus on what is really important. Secondly, we have a lack of detail. I understand that we now have a legislative programme sent by e-mail, but Parliament has not been associated with this and it seems, as other speakers have said, that we had a legislative programme which was not implemented this year. Mr Barón Crespo is right that we did not want it. We wanted a political programme and legislative programme and Parliament to be associated with that. Thirdly, there is a lack of coordination: not just coordination among ourselves but with the national parliaments. As Mrs Kaufmann said: how is it possible to establish a programme for the European Union if not all the actors who are concerned at political level are associated with it? This leads me to say that we were better off with President Santer. We were better off with the last Commission as regards the way in which the programme is presented. At least we had a programme in its outline and there was a real effort to try to get institutional priorities, and we had a legislative programme with details, which we could see in front of us. My conclusion today is that the Commission is there to propose. It has the right of initiative but it is not the European government. It cannot come to us and say this is what the European Union's programme is going to be and expect us simply to accept everything that is in its documents. Do you not agree, Mr President, that it would be better for the success of the European Union if we were to go back to presentation of the proposals of the legislative programme in October? We would then be able to discuss, debate, consult on and conclude a programme which the Union could put forward for the year ahead. If you have all of us with you, you will be better off than if we have interinstitutional wars, which you seem to have started this morning."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Elles (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph