Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.4.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I do not know whether Mr Corbett has been inspired by the great jurists of the European Parliament or whether he has carried out a detailed analysis of the regulations in force in most of our parliaments; what I do know for certain is that he must have read Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and the plays by Ionesco which are described, appropriately, as the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’.
His task was to simplify Parliament’s work and make it more transparent, not least in order to make it easier for public opinion, for the general public to understand. And the result? Mr Corbett is seeking to abolish topical and urgent debates, which are one of Parliament’s most effective ways of expressing itself and making its voice heard throughout the world.
As regards the procedures, the Corbett report introduces casuistry worthy of the Sacred Roman Rota in the best Jesuit tradition – no offence to the Jesuits. Thus, an amendment tabled in plenary may not ever reach plenary session, a report intended for plenary may not ever reach it either, and the procedures laid down for each report are in danger of being distorted with each successive committee meeting, as the previous speakers have said, on the basis of majorities which may or may not change.
With regard to all this, the idea seems to be, Mr President – to misquote George Orwell – that all groups are equal but some groups are more equal than others, and, in any case, the individual Members do not count for anything.
That is why, Mr President, with regard to the general revision of the Rules of Procedure, through which
Mr Corbett is seeking, not least, to introduce the concept of a form of ongoing dialogue on reform, the Italian radicals call for the majority of Mr Corbett’s proposals to be rejected on Wednesday.
As regards the other Corbett report, Mr President, we have been waiting and calling for two years for this House to get round to adopting a position on the treatment reserved by our Rules of Procedure for the Non-attached Members. The seven Members of the Bonino List, the seven radical Members, for instance, elected by over two and a half million Italian citizens, have not been able to table even a single amendment to the Corbett report purely on our own behalf, such that we have had to ask two group chairman to grant us the favour of – symbolically – allowing us to table symbolic amendments together with them – and I would like to thank them for this. I am saying this to illustrate the fact that, as individual Members, we have not been able to table even a single amendment on the report which will decide our fate in Parliament.
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance which disbanded the Technical Group of Independent Members, nine discriminatory conditions were imposed. We see the Corbett report – the second report, I mean – as a hesitant step towards resolving matters and, naturally, in this regard, we feel that the best solution would be to set up a mixed group. Thanks to the kindness of one of the groups, we have been able to table an amendment to this effect which we hope the House will adopt. We feel that it would be an initial step towards better definition of the necessary balance of relationships between the individual rights of the Members of the European Parliament and respect for national political balances and for the groups in this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples