Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.6.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for having described the issue in appropriate terms: what we need is a political vision and to overcome a division of the continent which has lasted for more than a century. I believe that that is what we have to communicate to our electors.
On that basis, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to remind you that at the meeting you kindly invited us to in Copenhagen, you spoke of the three phases of the Danish Presidency: the first did not depend on you; it was the Irish referendum, the final element of this year’s electoral rally. Finally, it has been won. And furthermore, you have made constructive use of an agreement – the Franco-German agreement on the funding of the agricultural policy – to make progress on an issue which is important in view of enlargement, which is the financial issue. And if you will allow me, Mr President, leaving aside something that we must debate in plenary session at the second reading in November, which is the state of the negotiations and the conditions for each candidate country, I will mention an important issue, that of funding, with a prior warning: I clearly support President Cox in his criticisms of all the governments – beginning with the Presidency – in relation to their continued treatment since Nice of the allocation of seats in the European Parliament. These seats are not bargaining chips at the mercy of the negotiations between countries, and there is still clear discrimination against two candidate countries – namely Hungary and the Czech Republic – on this point. Listen to what we are saying. Try to resolve the problem by listening to us.
With regard to the conclusions, there is a positive point, and that is that you have accepted that no candidate country should be a net contributor from the outset. I believe it is fair to point this out. However, there is one point on which I believe we must defend the rights of the European Parliament, and of all Parliaments: budgets in all democratic countries are carried out on an annual basis. We have supported the existence of financial perspectives, but clearly we cannot, now that they have abandoned the Soviet five-year plans in Russia, start producing ten-year plans. We cannot.
We cannot bind ourselves politically for the next ten years. What are elections for? What are Parliaments for? I believe that this issue – and I think it is good that progress has been made on it – should be debated more seriously. Why? Because, within the framework of Agenda 2000, the calculations were made on the basis of six countries. There are now ten. We are going to achieve a budgetary miracle: to do more with less. And we have to explain this to our public and to that of the candidate countries.
Furthermore, I would like to ask you directly, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, about the fifth priority, I believe, which you mentioned at the Copenhagen meeting. You said that we had to continue working on the reform of the agricultural policy. In view of the agreements at the summit, what is Commissioner Fischler going to do? Will he be out of a job? Will he abandon the proposal? Are we going to continue working? And I say this because this Parliament is going to vote tomorrow on a resolution on the mid-term review of the reform of the CAP, and that is important. We cannot act in such a contradictory fashion as to approve what was debated in Brussels last week when that is not compatible with the CAP.
A final observation, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on the Convention. The candidate countries are full participants in the Convention. We are talking about our future. So far progress has been made on a fundamental issue, they have listened to President Giscard d'Estaing who has proposed what is known as – and I think this a terrible expression – the ‘skeleton of the Convention’. I understand how, on the eve of Halloween and the Day of the Dead, we can talk about a skeleton, but now we must put flesh on the bones. We will have to hold a serious debate on this issue. All I want to say is that we must build on the basis of what there is, and what there is is the Community method and the balance between the institutions. And that must be respected and defended.
You have said that from Copenhagen we are going to return to Copenhagen. You know as well as I do that from Copenhagen, in terms of economic and defence issues, in order to return to Copenhagen we have to pass for the moment through Athens. I would therefore ask you in this respect that the Danish Presidency provide significant impetus, including from the point of view of their full incorporation into the Community acquis."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples