Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.5.1-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It was fascinating to hear the opposition a moment ago. Mr President, I joined this Parliament three and a half years ago with the firm intention of making Europe’s legislature more intelligible, more efficient and more democratic for our citizens, of helping to tear down the bureaucratic cathedrals and simplify administration. I have to say that, over three and a half years, we have, in this Parliament, discussed a whole raft of proposals. I would refer to the Kinnock reforms and the Lamassoure report on the clear distribution of roles between the four administrative layers of our European home, namely the European, national, regional and local levels. We are currently debating the Napolitano report, and are trying to get it endorsed here with a view to better anchoring down the foundation of our European home in the European constitution at both local and regional level.
Today, we are discussing the Bourlanges report that officially addresses the hierarchy of acts. Originally, this report was rather complex and quite theoretical, too theoretical, in fact. However, we managed to sit down and have a proper talk, and we can be pleased with the outcome, because we managed to considerably reduce more than 30 types of decisions at European level, which easily outrival Gaudi's Sagrada Familia in terms of complexity, down to a clearer proposal. We are left with three blocs of legislation: a constitutional bloc with principles, a legislative bloc and an implementing bloc for implementing measures. I should like to say one thing. Although we are giving our unqualified support to Mr Bourlanges, we do not see eye to eye with him on one particular point. We do not want a few states to be deprived of their veto right, as it were, when we come to revise the Treaty. We cannot say to certain countries – the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France or whichever other country – that they are not allowed to participate in the revision of the Treaty. In this respect, I endorse the views of Mrs Kaufmann and Mrs Frassoni. We will therefore be voting against this particular point. We remain adamant that the Treaty should be unanimous and should be changed unanimously. This does, however, pertain to the constitutional bloc; as far as the other blocs are concerned, we naturally endorse the view that these should be simplified. This, however, does not apply to the constitutional part, as we would then end up with things being done on a very unequal basis."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples