Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.5.1-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to say thank you to the rapporteur for his tireless enthusiasm for European development and for his splendid and very detailed report. I would nonetheless draw attention to two points about which I disagree. The first point concerns the procedure for revising the treaties. I completely agree that, against the background of the work in the Convention, it is clear that, in the future, we must use the Convention method for treaty amendments. That is something we have in any case learned from this process. I must nonetheless declare myself to be in complete disagreement with the rapporteur’s proposal with regard to changing the ratification procedure itself. I do not believe that it would be in keeping with the prevailing spirit of our Community if we were to take control of the EU’s development away from the Member States. I am in actual fact afraid that such a procedure would in itself stand in the way of development in this Europe of ours because people back home would be very sceptical about giving Europe more competences if, for example, they were not to feel that they were in control of what was going on. I think, therefore, that we have to recognise that Europe is founded upon its citizens and nations but that the sustaining, constituent units of our Union are the Member States and that this must naturally be reflected in our ratification procedure. We ought quite simply to stick to the procedure we have at present. The second point concerns the place of the social dialogue in the Community. The rapporteur is trying to have a procedure of approval by the Council and the European Parliament introduced whenever the two sides of industry have arrived at a proposal. I believe that such a procedure would give rise to an irrelevant third party in the social dialogue. The idea of the social dialogue is, of course, precisely that the two sides of industry should enter into binding agreements with each other and that there should be no irrelevant parties – in this case, legislators – involved in such agreements. If we are serious about beginning a social dialogue and perhaps, in time, creating proper European agreements, we must recognise that it is the two sides of industry themselves which must negotiate and that the legislators must stay outside the process."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples