Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-236"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.8.2-236"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President of the European Parliament ... no, EB of the EB, Mr President of the European Parliament ... no, EB, EB. What is all this about? You can either present and justify all of this as being in the interests of the State, just as Elmar Brok, whom I personally hold in high esteem both here and in other professional contexts, has done, or you can comment a little on the procedure and how this agreement has come about and consider why someone behind me always says, 'EB, EB' when I say, 'EP'.
We certainly need to be a little wary here. I welcome the fact that this agreement will give Parliament a bit more power and that there is also going to be the opportunity to examine certain documents. I do not wish to run the risk of the little man behind me, who always says 'EB, EB', being proved right by people confusing the European Parliament, 'EP', with EB, 'Elmar Brok'.
Why am I saying this, and why, strange as it may seem, are they seen as one and the same thing? Because I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the way in which this has been negotiated is not exactly exemplary, and that the fact is that, in the final analysis, we are faced with a take it or leave it situation. Many Members hardly had the chance to be involved in the negotiating process and above all it is now once again EB who has access to internal documents and, as he himself also said, he is pleased that only Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy are involved while the EP, the European Parliament, is left out in the cold.
We can, indeed we must, live with these objections, because obviously this can be seen as a foot in the door, but as I see it – and I am not the only one – the report does contain some reassurance. It says in the explanatory statement: 'It is ... crucial that the Agreement includes a provision that it will be reviewed after two years at the request of either of the two institutions in the light of the experience acquired in implementing it.'
I very much hope that those who are involved now, that is the two EBs and their friends, will not act in such a way that the agreement is unilaterally terminated by the Council or whoever it may be, so that the EP then has an opportunity to have more of a say when the text is redrafted and actually to become what someone previously called a fully-fledged parliament. Each of the individual committees should be able to have their say and fair account should be taken of the very diverse views represented in this House, so that this clash is avoided, and also so that we prove that what was mentioned earlier is true; that we are in agreement here that there can be no democracy without transparency, and that includes within this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples