Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-366"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.15.3-366"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, every year the European Parliament presents a report on the activities of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly. Since 2000, however, the Cotonou Agreement has brought about a new context that profoundly changes the very nature of this report. The Cotonou Agreement made profound changes to the cooperation objectives, with the new goal being a renewed partnership that is more balanced and more effective. This means that there have to be changes in the JPA’s modus operandi. More than just changes in the modus operandi, it requires a real cultural change.
Where are we in this process? The Joint Parliamentary Assembly is at a watershed. After 2000, which had raised great hopes of a new era in relations between the EU and ACP States, 2001 did not fulfil all its promise. The working group did undertake a massive adaptation of its working methods, but many delays and a great deal of resistance hindered progress.
Here are three examples of this: firstly, the European States’ inertia in the ratification process. Only three countries have ratified the agreement: Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and us, the European Union. Although we are aware that the procedures are long in many European countries, this sends out a political message and a negative signal to the ACP countries. All European Member States must ratify the agreement before the end of 2002.
The second example is the untimely use of voting by separate college in the Assembly. This is detrimental to its parliamentary nature. I propose limited use, and in particular I propose a moratorium on its use among Europeans. The question of voting rights is fundamental, and the debate over Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure has led to numerous controversies. The principle of representation by parliamentarians alone must be forcefully reaffirmed, and the compromise drawn up by the Working Group, which specifies limited cases of difficulty in which voting by non-parliamentarians is permitted, is the final position that we can accept here.
We need to get through this bad patch. This report proposes a few paths that we could take. I will only mention some of them, such as a specific instrument to contribute to democracy: the democratic bonus, financial or material aid to improve the functioning of democratically elected parliaments and a better representation of the opposition. For the ACP countries, the principle is one country, one vote. In fact, each country speaks with just one voice. It is impossible for opposition Members of Parliament in the ACP countries to make themselves heard. In order to remedy this, we need to have an open debate, without taboos, on the re-weighting of votes. For now, the proposal of three delegates per country, put forward by my fellow Member Mr Martinez last year, is heading in the right direction.
As a result there is the question of funding. Following a rigorous financial assessment by the Commission, a special fund would be reserved to cover the travel costs of ACP parliamentary representatives only and for the organisation of sessions. From a more general point of view, the JPA is the only assembly that has no budget. It should be given new powers to enable it to exercise financial and political control over the funding of cooperation.
Finally, my last point: the European Parliament should devote special attention to the work of the ACP countries in a comprehensive debate, at least once a year, here in the European Parliament, on the different aspects of cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples