Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.9.1-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the motion for a resolution that is proposed to us in Mrs Mann's report includes, in paragraph 21, a call for European trade policy to be brought fully within the Community system as such, with exclusive competence for the Community, majority voting in the Council and codecision with the European Parliament.
We cannot go along with this Community fundamentalism, which is based on the idea that only supranational mechanisms are appropriate for this policy, so as to foster greater openness at global level and to sideline the nation states. But opening up world markets, as useful as it may be, is not everything. We also have to recognise that the Member States have societal models and fundamental interests to protect. We therefore need to leave them the means to do so and strike a fair balance between European policy and national interests, between supervision by the European Parliament and supervision by the national parliaments. In our opinion, Mrs Mann's report does not strike this balance.
In particular, there is a need to recognise that taking decisions by a qualified majority in the Council may not always have the desired effect. Let us take a topical example: the Convention on the Future of Europe is reflecting on the possibility of making our entire trade policy subject to the majority rule, thus doing away with the derogations recognised by the Treaty of Nice for certain essential services, in particular cultural services, that this Treaty states continue to require unanimity.
The French Government has protested and requested that unanimity be maintained because it provides greater protection. We approve. But as an aside, why accept this here and not elsewhere? At the same time, an association of large, mainly American, companies, the International Communications Round Table, is obligingly writing to the Convention and to the Commission to sing the praises of the majority rule. This illustrates the fact that in practice this rule would make it possible to ignore opposition from individual nations in specific areas and thus bring down our defences.
That is why we are asking the Convention to look at the bigger picture and to take a more balanced view. First, we need to increase the involvement of national parliaments. Secondly, the majority procedure should only be used for adopting safeguard measures. On the contrary, whenever it is a question of reducing our protection, decisions should be taken by unanimity so as not to damage anyone's interests."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples