Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.6.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me start by making a point relating to method, since the President of the Commission – quite rightly, in my opinion – has touched on the Stability Pact, which is the next item for debate. The President-in-Office of the Council informs me that Minister Tremonti will deal with this subject, not him. We will have to tell both of them what we think about this budgetary and economic issue.
I would like to conclude, Mr President, by commenting on the Council’s all-out attack on Parliament, despite the fact that it has no authority to do so. Let us be clear: Ecofin does not have authority over the powers of this House. I would say that this is an offensive move on the part of the Council and also of their advisors, the
as they are called in Italian, since Coreper is the next level down from the Council, and it is in Coreper that the papers are prepared for the Council, as the Ministers are not usually experts in this field.
Let me say that this kind of proposal is wholly unacceptable to us. There is a clear demarcation line that must not be crossed. In fact, I would go further: there has been a harmonious balance of power between Parliament and the Council since 1975 and we are not going to take these changes lying down. If the Council dismantles the budget system, we will respond in kind, and we will see who is willing to go furthest. We are not just going to sit still and bemoan our lot. We have powers, and we shall defend them to the bitter end.
Let us start at the beginning, however. On the subject of the Social Summit, which will be covered in greater detail by other Members, I would like to start by saying that I hope the Summit will not just be a bolt-on extra. The Lisbon Strategy has shown us what happens to good intentions in the absence of commitments. We feel it is incredibly important at this time that we should devote ourselves to devising proactive policies for our most valuable asset: human resources. We therefore support Wim Kok’s proposals and hope that the Council will draft policies which are more than just a list of good intentions.
Moving on to the outcome of the ministerial meeting in Naples – which apparently, although there was no black smoke issuing from Vesuvius, was marked by a storm that darkened the end of the meeting – I would like to state, in clear opposition to the position adopted by the Italian Government, that we still want to see an agreement on 13 December. We want the Italian Presidency to be a success. I have to admit that the Italian Presidency has maintained a constructive approach, often going much further than most governments.
Moving on to the issues under discussion today, I would like to draw the Council and the Italian Presidency’s attention to the responsibilities of this Intergovernmental Conference, which is being held after the Union has opened its doors to democracy. Those doors were opened, but have been shut again. We cannot now accept last-minute deals and haggling that are not only against Parliament, but also against democracy and transparency.
Consequently, we in the PSE Group do not consider the question of the Legislative Council settled. In the name of dignity and in order to maintain the ordinary legislative process, the Intergovernmental Conference ought to reconsider the matter.
On the subject of the Commission’s composition, I would like to say that, in principle, the majority in my group feels a flexible solution is required. We are not in favour of having one Commissioner per Member State, but whatever happens, we have to remember that we are thinking in terms of transition periods, when actually the Commission needs to be a responsible executive body for Europe.
We have noted the Italian Presidency’s proposal regarding qualified majority voting, which is based on a double majority of citizens and States as in Article 1 of the Constitution. There is room for fine-tuning, but what we must not do is go further, to the triple majority established at the Nice Summit, because this approach definitely does not work.
We welcome the progress made on structured cooperation on defence under the Common Foreign and Security Policy and we support the Italian Presidency’s proposal on extending the use of qualified majority voting.
We are very disappointed with the current third pillar proposals, particularly those relating to judicial cooperation, criminal and civil matters, and the role of the European Public Prosecutor. There is a very clear regression on these points compared with the draft Constitution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"sottogoverno"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples