Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.2.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too would like to acknowledge the Greek Presidency’s work over the last few months and say how pleased I am with yesterday evening’s work to conclude the agreement on better regulation. In particular, I am grateful to the President of the Commission for having reminded us of the origins of the Convention and what our objectives were, given that at times we forget them, when we see that some members of the Praesidium and especially its Chairman want to pose more as members of the Intergovernmental Conference than Europe’s founding fathers.
The Convention, Mr President, must retain control of the process of reforming the European Union. If it does not manage to conclude its work by 20 June, we must allow it to continue working to reach an agreement, which is perfectly feasible provided that the Convention plays its full part as a constituent or para-constituent assembly, does not give in to blackmail by the small numbers of eurosceptics who have no interest in seeing it succeed – this needs to be said and reiterated – and asserts the value of an open, parliamentary working method which is very different from the intergovernmental method that is based exclusively on power politics.
It is true that the President and the Praesidium have clearly miscalculated, intentionally prolonging the concluding period of debates without ever setting out in black and white which points had achieved a broad consensus, thereby deluding themselves that they can control the Convention at will and giving the wrong impression that the Convention is divided on everything; but today the governments which are anxious to see this constitutional reform succeed – and they exist, I am sure, and I am also sure that your government, Mr President, is among these – cannot simply pull the plug on the Convention if it does not conclude its proceedings to the satisfaction of the majority of its members. We consider that, if the Convention offered options at Thessaloniki, this would prove that its job is unfinished.
In my opinion, there are at least three issues where we need to send out a signal of progress, democracy and clarity, which can be seen directly by all the citizens: direct access to justice for citizens in the event of breaches of the Charter of Rights; the simultaneous extension of codecision and Council majority voting, in particular with regard to taxation and foreign affairs. We will not be able to act as a global player, committed to the values of multilateralism and democracy, if we are blocked at every turn by vetoes and counter-vetoes and if all of this sector remains, as it is today, totally free of any form of parliamentary control. The third and final point is that the reform process cannot maintain unanimity and cannot allow once again – and this really is an astonishing situation for 2003 – the European Parliament to be excluded from the ratification process.
Turning to the Seville programme which you, Mr President, referred to: we have often condemned the great imbalance in the strategy agreed in Tampere, between the repressive aspects of the fight against illegal immigration and the forced repatriation policy and the positive aspects, such as the creation of legal, controlled immigration channels, the softening of the visa policy and integration measures for third countries based on the non-discrimination principle. We hope, Mr President, that the Council will heed the loud and clear message that Parliament sent out yesterday: no signing of the extradition treaty between the European Union and the United States without clarification of the situation of the European Union citizens in Guantanamo. We are referring to Union citizens not because the others do not concern or interest us, but because we consider that, by taking this approach, we can legitimately intervene on the entire issue of the existence of a part of the world where no laws exist."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples