Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.1.3-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we are getting increasingly close to what we asked for at the beginning of the legislature, that is, an annual political programme presented to Parliament with the participation of the Council – and I hope that Minister Haarder’s presence here is not superfluous and that he can also participate by responding to our comments, in line with visibility, transparency and democratic control. In this context, Mr President, please allow me to refer to a phrase that is in the programme – and which I believe is an error by the ‘hack’ who wrote it – which states that the programme provides the Commission’s input to the Council’s annual working programme. Could the President of the Commission clarify for us what this sentence means? Because what we believe is that Parliament is not taken into account and the Commission is reduced to the role of secretariat of the Council, and we disagree entirely with this kind of approach.
I am going to focus on the three great priorities mentioned by the President and I will leave it to other Members to deal with specific aspects.
With regard to enlargement, we spoke about this yesterday. Within the Community acquis, we attach great importance to the strengthening of the social dimension in the candidate countries, except in relation to the areas in which we believe the Commission should make more effort. And, apart from holding discussions – the final phase of the negotiations is yet to take place – there are certain issues which we should remember. For example, we are struck by the fact that in the report of the Court of Auditors this year it says that in the SAPAR pre-accession programme, only one million euros has been spent, which is 0.1%. We are always discussing quantities, but we must look at how they are spent and invested. We must debate this issue not only with the Commission, but also with our friends and, I hope very soon, neighbours, in the candidate countries.
Secondly, with regard to the economic issue, which is absolutely central, we can see that the spirit of Lisbon and Gothenburg are still alive within the Commission. However, we must recognise that recent events have demonstrated that we are not playing a central role in terms of economic growth and, above all, there is a concern that economic governance is not being strengthened – and we will have to see what is happening in the Convention’s working group. In the long term, a monetary union which is not consolidated by an economic union and a political union is not viable; history has taught us this and we must take it very much into account in order to move forward.
A final point on the economic and social priorities. As well as sustainable development, you, in relation to the framework directive on services of general interest, which was agreed in Barcelona, are proposing a Green Paper. We prefer a framework directive.
With regard to stability and security, apart from the priority of terrorism, which is absolutely universal, the Swedish Presidency proposed a consideration of the demographic future of Europe. This should be linked to the issue of immigration. We welcome the fact – and in particular I am referring to the Members on the Right of the House – that you defend the role of legal immigration in relation to our welfare societies and our demographic future, but, in any event – and I am addressing the Council – I believe it would be very positive if there were a more active approach.
With regard to the debate on the borders of Europe, you have spoken of the spirit and soul – I believe in lay terms – for all Europeans. Our former colleague, Mrs Palacio, Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that Europe is not a Christian club. I welcome this comment, which I believe is absolutely correct. In any event – also in relation to the Convention – it is important that we find formulae for qualified association.
Please allow me to comment on the elements missing from the programme. The status of political parties is not included as a priority. Now that the Treaty of Nice has been approved, it is essential to make rapid progress in this regard in order to consolidate a fundamental element of European democracy. The Commission had already made a transitional proposal, even beforehand. Secondly, we are going to vote on a resolution – I believe with a large majority in this House – relating to freedom of expression and media concentration. In this regard, we would welcome a more dynamic attitude on the part of the Commission.
Finally, and I will end here, Mr President, there is an issue which worries us very much: the agreements of the General Affairs Council last Monday. We have noted, from what we have been told and from leaks, that the President of the Commission is concerned to find a final date for the mandate of this Commission. I always thought that you would be a Commission that would be operational from the day of the elections. In any event, this is a constitutional issue. We are opposed to the General Affairs Council, without having debated the issue with Parliament and without you having presented it, taking a unilateral decision containing many elements which clearly clash with the Treaties. We therefore ask – and I address this to you, Mr President, so that it may be communicated to the President of Parliament – that the proposal for an interinstitutional agreement on this important issue be raised by the President in Copenhagen and I would like to hear an explanation today by both the President of the Commission and the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples