Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.1.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am able to support the separation of foreign and security policy from other EU cooperation and the restriction regarding the constitution of the Council, but I must disassociate myself from all the attempts to give the larger countries a greater share of presidencies and posts. All countries must be equal in the EU – before, during and after the Seville Summit.
The proposed reform concerning transparency does not seriously open the Council of Ministers’ work up to the public, let alone to the elected representatives in the European Parliament and the national parliaments. What is wanted is an open debate on Commission proposals when these are first tabled, and it is true that transparency will embrace all proposals. It is not, however, until the end of the process that voting will be opened up and, because only a small number of proposals are voted on in practice, this part of the exercise is purely cosmetic. We shall learn no more than we do at present when the Council publishes approximately 50 records of the votes per year. The problem is that 70% of decisions are finalised by the Council’s working parties and 15% at meetings of COREPER ambassadors. Only 15% of the proposals are put before the Council, and we do not have figures for what percentage ministers in actual fact see. The requirement in this area must be that all elected representatives, at least, have full right of access to documents as part of the legislative process.
The Commission has promised us that we can be shown Members’ contributions to the Council’s working parties. I am pleased that, yesterday at the Conference of Presidents, the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr Piquet, promised us full access to the Council’s working parties during the codecision process, and so that is a good beginning.
Why not decide that every EU proposal is to be put before the national parliaments and go through the same process as national bills. A purely national bill can always be altered, whereas an EU bill can never be altered. That is precisely why an EU bill should not be debated any less thoroughly than those bills which permit the rapid adjustment of errors or unintended consequences. It could be assumed that the right of veto under the Luxembourg Accords should continue to apply, perhaps in the variant proposed by Georges Berthoin, Monnet's right-hand man, whereby the prime minister is obliged to defend a veto at the next summit. It might also be required that a national parliament’s decision to use the veto be made openly. It must not be made easy to block a proposal, but use of the veto must be an option if the EU is to consist of cooperation between parliamentary democracies in free countries. That is our wish in a Europe of democracies and diversities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples