Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.5.1-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am certainly not going to talk about the content, but I would nonetheless like to clarify two or three facts. On the one hand, I would like to say to Mrs Frassoni and Mrs Kaufmann that they must not misunderstand this report: Article 308, as referred to in this report, would result in decisions being made by codecision and qualified majority; we would therefore leave behind Council unanimity in favour of codecision, just as we have for own resources. It is untrue to say that we are proposing to exceed the powers of the European Parliament; we are – since Mrs Kaufmann referred to it – fully in line with the interpretation of the German Constitutional Court, which, following Mr Herzog’s report at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, pointed out that European parliamentary power was needed wherever competence was transferred from one area to another. Let us therefore have no unfounded accusations on this point: we are in favour of codecision.
Similarly, I fully understand that there might be some hostility towards the proposal that ratification of the Constitution should not be by unanimous vote, even though that is not the main point of the report, and I would not, therefore, want us to focus on that. I fully understand that there might be hostility on principle, and I understand what Mr van den Berg said on the subject.
I would not, however, want any unfounded accusations to be made. It is untrue to say (and I think Mr Marinho should review this point) that the proposal is in any way insulting or disdainful towards small States. The proposal would allow States that represent 2.4% of the Community population to veto the adoption or ratification of a Treaty that might thus be supported by States representing 97.6% of the Community population. So let us not have any unfounded accusations! If one is in favour of Member State sovereignty, I can understand that one would not want a treaty to be ratified by just some of the States. My proposal, however, does not discriminate in any way against small or medium-sized States.
I would like to say a word about Mr Duff, who tabled Amendment No 14. I agree with the content of this amendment, since it states that we need to revise parts A and B of the future Constitution differently. I made a proposal to this effect but I did not receive the support of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and I therefore cannot endorse this amendment personally. However, I believe the argument put forward by Mr Duff is entirely accurate and, personally, I fully support his move, even if, as rapporteur, my hands are tied."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples