Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030327.3.4-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against the Theato report because the institution of a European Prosecutor would serve mainly to increase Brussels’ power.
This objective undoubtedly explains the Commission’s amazing determination to push this proposal through. It had already presented it to the intergovernmental conference responsible for drawing up the Treaty of Nice, which rejected the offer. The governments then chose the far more sensible option of Eurojust, in other words, the option of improved cooperation between national legal systems, with no supranational aspect.
The Commission is now back on the offensive with a Green Paper, and of course the European Parliament is following close behind. Unfortunately for them, the competent working group of the Convention did not adopt this proposal as there was too much division. Not a problem! The Presidium took it up on its own initiative and automatically included it in its draft European Constitution.
Behind this determination, once again, lies a simple power struggle. In the eyes of federalists, the European Prosecutor would have the main advantage of providing entry into the national legal systems and leading to a chain of reforms until total integration has been achieved. We, on the contrary, must promote the idea of a network of national systems cooperating with each other."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples