Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.4.1-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am especially delighted that I can comment on the important Corbett report concerning a more political and more exciting Parliament that also appeals to the press and the people. A real parliament, in other words. Needless to say, we as Parliament still too often lack powers. In defence, migration, agriculture and in other areas too, and this is what the fight in the Convention about the future of Europe is about. At the moment, the European Commission and Council are often too technocratic in this respect too. They drag us down into detail and thus conceal the real political choices. These are subsequently brought to us in an ambiguous format which, in turn, has a negative bearing on their appeal to the citizen.
Perhaps we as Parliament should be given a temporary foot and mouth inquiry committee, modelled on the BSE inquiry committee. These are ways in which we can turn into a tiger rather than a toothless lamb. Every parliamentary committee can already develop activities in order to become more powerful, and we actually want to gain a more solid position as Parliament, much like the American Congress and the Senate.
Today, we are, in fact, tackling a component, an important component in which tradition, technocracy and – unfortunately – conservatism have hampered us too much in order to become a more political and more interesting parliament. Nowadays, we often have a list, sometimes in the form of insulting one-minute statements, which make a mockery of the parliamentary debates. The most insulting of all must be that the Commission and the Council sometimes take up three times as much speaking time as all the group leaders combined. I would ask the Commission and the Council at this stage to adopt more stringent restrictions of their own volition. Subsequently, we ourselves must limit the number of speakers on behalf of the group. We must liven up the debate here and there by using the catch-the-eye principle. This principle should not be used for empty talk, but exactly allow those who have already spoken to take the floor again, so that a true dialogue can take place.
I should now like to turn to the point of urgent debates. I have the honour of coordinating the urgent resolutions on behalf of the PSE Group. This is often a disgrace in my view. The groundwork is far too cursory and judgment is passed on all manner of things without the specialist committees being involved. I recognise that human rights can warrant a resolution and be of value to a government or country involved. These, however, should be prepared thoroughly and be closely monitored, even following adoption, and be given a sound follow-up. My group supports the idea of the human rights/NGO community and in this respect, has asked Pat Cox and yourselves to set up a parliamentary committee with a wide remit, much like the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, at the earliest opportunity. In that case, the urgent debates can be abolished and we will gain a far better and more credible perspective. I am interested to hear the reactions to this.
Mr Corbett has done a considerable amount of work and made compromises in order to reach a common position. With this, Parliament has searched its own conscience. We as Parliament, would, pending the forthcoming enlargement by 10 to 12 new Member States, ask for frequent reforms of all European institutions, including the Council and the Commission. This is also required as a matter of urgency. However, we should not at the same time be frightened about carrying out reforms that are desperately needed ourselves. We should admit that the previous reforms of the European Parliament have achieved precious little. They can be summed up as much ado about nothing. This is because individual interests, interests of smaller groups, one-sided interests and ever tighter legislation, time and again, result in voting on hundreds of amendments, split votes and roll-call votes. Mr Corbett has made a valiant effort in all these areas and has sought to compromise. However, the self-same interests are threatening to undermine the whole show again. I call on all fellow MEPs to serve the total interest of our Parliament’s democratic politics and not to remain focused on one-sided interests. Indeed, by voting on the Corbett report with a majority, we should demonstrate that we are up to the task, and the fruits should be a little more significant this time. Parliament should have the courage to shrug off its past."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples