Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.6.3-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to address a theme raised by the President-in-Office of the Council which nobody else has yet spoken about but which, for more than one person in this House, is of great moment and significance.
The President-in-Office mentioned that the question is being raised as to whether the minimum number of MEPs per state is too low. Is it wrong to retain a relatively low basic membership in a new and enlarging Union? Let us pause and reflect upon this.
At the moment, in Britain
which is composed of three nations, England, Scotland and Wales
Wales is currently represented in this House by five Members. After the new Constitution comes into effect, if it does, the number of Members representing Wales in this House will drop to four. Malta will have five. I do not object at all to Malta having five Members: it is a fine thing for small countries to have proper representation. As a Scot, how could I think otherwise?
We must not forget, however, that the principle of degressive proportionality has a deep justification. Degressive proportionality says that every state in this Union must be represented in this House by a sufficient number of MEPs so as fully to express the political diversity of that state. Rightly, therefore, even the 400 000 citizens of Malta should have at least five Members, but perhaps no more. If you insist, rightly, on keeping a maximum ceiling of membership, the upshot of increasing yet further the degressive proportionality threshold above five will be to cut the representation of significant parts of existing Member States.
In the debates we had about the competences of the Union, Mr Lamassoure reminded the House of the importance of partner regions, countries like Flanders, Galicia, Euskadi and, indeed, Scotland. These are significant parts in the Union. If you cut their representation you deny them the degressive proportionality on which you rightly insist for countries such as Malta or Cyprus. Do not do that.
This is not a trivial point. At the Convention, as a Member representing Scotland, I tried many times to alert colleagues to the significance of entrenching certain aspects of the common fisheries policy that are unacceptable to us. I was not heeded. The upshot of that is that it will be impossible for me, as a strong supporter of this idea of a European Constitution, to persuade my political colleagues in Scotland to back ratification of the text because I now know that on that point it will not be changed. My appeal was neglected. Had I been representing a larger force I might have been heard. What a pity! Do not neglect degressive proportionality for the
of the states of the Union in insisting on it for the states."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"components"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples