Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.2.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, your speech today shows the value of the open election campaign. We have taken the time to discuss our own circumstances, and I should like to thank the President for his contribution and the discussion today, as well as table proposals for consideration.
Consolidation of the laws could of course take place through our refusing to debate, or directly rejecting, proposals that are not consolidated. It cannot be sensible to accumulate 70 amendments in order to see how the law stands where fish are concerned. A reform in the interests of transparency should ensure that all meetings are open and all documents accessible, unless a qualified majority approves an exemption supported by reasons, of the kind we approved in the Martin/Bourlanges report. Political appointments must be a thing of the past. In future, everyone should be appointed and promoted according to their qualifications, here in Parliament too, and we could make a fresh start with those who are now to be appointed from the candidate countries. The plenary sittings must be turned into lively occasions. A third of the time could be set aside for spontaneous debate, as you intimated. Those active in Parliament must have the opportunity to tackle the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council if they do not receive answers. All MEPs must be permitted to speak at least three times a year. The number of votes must be cut back so that we are only voting on political differences. After each debate, the coordinators should meet and make the technical preparations for the voting. Details of the voting list should be known at least a week before voting takes place so that we can all consult our electorates and be aware of what we are voting on.
The way in which posts are distributed should be revised. The d’Hondt method could be replaced by the Saint Laguë method in which the distribution is on the basis of 1,3,5 instead of 1,2,3,4,5. It would provide the same proportionate distribution, but it would make it possible for the smaller groups not always to have to take what the large groups leave aside and, in cases where the small groups are not represented, they could be appointed as observers. The independent Members should have their quota of opportunities, and we should ourselves remove all forms of discrimination instead of risking new legal proceedings. The Corbett report’s attack on the small political groups should be replaced by a gentlemen’s agreement through which we achieve some of Mr Corbett's objectives without reducing the groups’ rights. In the Convention, majorities and minorities must have the same access to qualified aid and be able to put forward, and campaign for, proposals in the same way. There cannot be special rights for specific positions. The European Movement and the federalists do not have a sole and exclusive right to organise the debate with civil society using Parliament’s money. We must join in getting the whole of Parliament and the Convention to operate in such a way that all Members representing all positions feel they are being treated properly and on an equal basis. Today at the meeting with Mr Giscard d’Estaing, we must make a point of ensuring that all alternates in the Convention are given full rights of participation in the work. Good luck with the reform work!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples