Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.7.3-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have listened carefully to the statements of the President-in-Office of the Council, which outlined general approaches which I feel I can support, but I would prefer to focus on a number of practical issues, not least because Mr Antonione called for the European Parliament’s support. To obtain this support, which we are, moreover, quite willing to give, he must enter into dialogue with the positions of the European Parliament.
On 21 October, there was a meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in which the Italian Foreign Minister took part, representing the President-in-Office. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Antonione and the House to two points once again. We are firmly in favour of keeping the reference to the Legislative Council, the concentration of the European Parliament’s legislative function in the Council, which is an important point, a major innovation of the draft Convention. Now, Mr Antonione tells us that he has taken note of the fact that the majority is opposed to this. I would express my doubts once again regarding this approach: one cannot take decisions just by counting the numbers for and against. Sometimes, I even have the impression that the views of 28 governments are part of the equation, whereas only 25 are entitled to give an opinion, for three are mere observers. In the Convention, there were analyses, exchange of opinions, a search for solutions, a debate on the points for and against each solution, and, lastly, compromise. We cannot accept that the Intergovernmental Conference should do no more than tot up the fors and againsts. Mr Antonione has made a commitment – and I appreciate the significance of this – to keep the matter open. I do not know exactly what the outcome of this will be, but we call strongly for this point not to be deleted.
The second point concerns the procedure for revising the Treaties. Mr Antonione did not mention it today, but Mr Frattini undertook before our committee to look into drawing up an Italian proposal to go beyond the text, which was not agreed in the Convention and is not, therefore, binding for any party. We are in danger of creating an absurd situation where we go back to square one on issues already resolved in the Convention with a compromise but we are unable to discuss issues which were not the subject of an agreement in the Convention, such as, precisely, the revision procedure. I do not know whether the Italian Presidency intends to include this matter in the comprehensive proposal planned for the third week in November too, but we reiterate our firm commitment to fight for this to be included.
Lastly, Mr Antonione did not mention the issue raised by Mr Méndez de Vigo: it is unacceptable for sectoral configurations of the Council of Ministers to produce amendments to the Convention’s text."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples