Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.8.2-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, ladies and gentlemen, this report does not seem to me to be very appropriate as, although, strictly speaking, there is no uniform electoral procedure, the European elections have nonetheless been organised on very widely accepted common principles since 1999. Why, therefore, produce yet another report on a matter that has been discussed numerous times, except to try to re-launch an integration process that seems even more doomed than ever.
We could talk at length about the grounds for a move that arbitrarily imposes proportional representation and, even more controversially, the territorialisation of constituencies in the more populous Member States, by means of Community law. I would like to emphasise that there is nothing, except reasoning that is as simplistic as it is erroneous, to suggest that this measure would bring the elected closer to the electorate or this being one of the desired objectives, that it would increase participation in European elections. Single or regionalised constituencies, proportional or majority voting: since 1979, every permutation has been tried, to no avail. We must therefore accept that tinkering with the electoral laws will not create an artificial feeling of belonging to the European Union or reduce the colossal abstention that affects the legitimacy of Parliament. Having said that, I would more specifically like to highlight two aspects that I consider unacceptable.
First, the unlikely idea of a single European constituency for the election of 10% of the seats in Parliament, which I am glad to say was rejected by the Council but which is nonetheless referred to by the rapporteur. Not only does this proposal run entirely counter to the objective of territorialisation – the single European constituency would distance its Members from their voters, whereas territorialisation aims, on the contrary, to bring them closer – but it also ignores Article 189 of the Treaty on the European Communities. In effect, while the latter stipulates that Parliament must be composed of representatives of the people of the Member States of the Community, it is being proposed that we elect stateless Members.
The second point with which I thoroughly disagree concerns the reflections on the role of the European political parties, which the rapporteur invites to announce a candidate for the Commission Presidency in future election campaigns. I note that this initiative constitutes a further violation of the Treaty, which gives the governments of the Member States the power to choose the person they wish to appoint as president of the Commission.
What is more, I believe that this ridiculous idea is dangerous, not to say perverse, as, by usurping a responsibility reserved for the Member States, it introduces a party system, and its inevitable corollary, an Assembly Government, at European level. The participation of the European parties in voting is something that could possibly be considered, but their involvement in the workings of the Community institutions must be firmly opposed. That is why, with regret, I cannot echo the compliments addressed to our rapporteur – although my criticism is by no means personal – and I therefore conclude that this report must be rejected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples