Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.6.3-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not need to use all my speaking time, Commissioner, as this is a matter of public knowledge. What we are dealing with here is the fact that the wording of Article 32 and the declaration of Annex XV to be primary law mean that the Council is in breach of its Agreement with Parliament. This has to do with Parliament and the candidates for accession not being dealt with in the same way as the other Member States. This is quite clearly a legal problem, and it is also a problem in terms of a fundamental issue. Those of us who sit on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy take an interest in the equal treatment of the candidate countries, but – as Parliament's fundamental rights are involved – we especially support the position of the Committee on Budgets as well, for budgetary law is the prerogative of any Parliament, and must not be set aside even in a situation such as this.
I do not understand the Council. Although our dialogues made reference to many options and possibilities, which are also contained in the draft resolution on which we will be voting tomorrow, the Council has adopted none of them, even though that would have made it possible for us to come to an understanding by now. Responsibility for this lies with the Council. I am perfectly aware that the Greek Presidency of the Council is making every effort to resolve this, so I am not attacking the Presidency; this is more about the conduct of a number of the Member States' governments. I get the feeling that the government of my own country also has a part in this, and not one about which we can be entirely happy.
I regard it as an unworthy trick to confront ten countries that have made the journey, by way of a great process of transformation, from dictatorship to being invited to join the European Union, with a situation that makes them insecure, and, at the same time, to go about curtailing Parliament's rights, even though it was the advent of democracy that was crucial in overcoming dictatorship. That the Council should behave in this way leaves me baffled.
Let me ask the Presidency's representatives to inform their colleagues that we will not allow the process of European unification to be wrecked by tax inspectors scrutinising certain aspects of the administration of power. We know perfectly well that, financially speaking, we cannot push this too far; it would be disproportionate to take excessive advantage of a Budget, for that is not what we are aiming for. What we are working towards here is a right and a matter of principle. I think the Council must be able to summon up sufficient creative thought to enable us to resolve this matter, so that the requirements of the law are satisfied and, on 9 April, we in the European Parliament can give the green light to the accession treaties being signed in Athens on 16 April. Whatever happens, we want that date to be kept to; it is a duty laid upon us by history. How will it look if, because of disputes about the Budget, we vote on 9 April for a deferment and the Hungarians hold their referendum on 12 April? Are we to sacrifice the stuff of history for the sake of a financial issue like this one? So I urge you to get into gear and get a move on once and for all, so that we can come to a speedy decision on this matter and do justice to our historic mission!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples