Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-28-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040128.3.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Three brief comments, Mr President: the aim of constitutional reform is to make the European Union more democratic and more effective, and not to calculate the balance of power between Member States. The Intergovernmental Conference has, however, stalled on this issue and it is clear that the decision-making method which allows the veto is the real cancer of the European Union, it is that which is killing Community solidarity of any kind.
For the majority of my group, the text adopted by the Convention represented – or represents – a step forward, but certainly not a revolution. I am sure that there is a substantially large majority on that point in Parliament, but it seems to me that, in the words of the Presidency and in our debate, there is a fundamental ambiguity. We are all optimistic and hopeful, we are encouraging the Irish Presidency to do its best, but what is it that we are encouraging it to do? We are even turning down any parliamentary initiative that might upset the Presidency, we are deciding not to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Spinelli, of the formal adoption of the Convention. I repeat, what is it we are encouraging it to do?
Mr Hänsch, if democratisation is a criterion of your assessment, then we cannot accept the results of Naples for the simple fact that the results of Naples represent, in the majority of their proposals, a backward step with regard to the Convention and, in certain cases, in particular where the budget is concerned and even as regards the current situation. How can you, as our representative, accept such a thing? It is not possible! It smacks of ambiguity, it is a contradiction in terms! In my view, therefore, we really cannot be content with talking about whether the glass is half empty or half full. With regard to the five or six points on which agreement was more or less reached in Naples, I should like to hear what the Irish Presidency has to say. I should like to know what it will do and on what it will try to reach an agreement: on the text of the Convention or on what, Mr President, you have today defined as a good basis? From what you said at the beginning of your Presidency, I gained the impression that the 82 points did not exist. So then: do they or do they not exist? Are they or are they not a basis? Frankly, I have not understood, and it seems dangerous to me that our two representatives take the view that this is a good basis for negotiation, because actually it is not, and this is not Parliament’s position.
Secondly, a quick point: frankly, it seems to me, once again, that the ideal way that we can help the Irish Presidency is to mobilise Members and public opinion around a project for democracy. If we again decide to leave everything to the Intergovernmental Conference, in March and in May, we will end up with a project worse than that put forward in Naples. I therefore call on Members, on the various parliamentary groups, which are in the majority compared to my group, to insist on the idea of meetings, to insist on the idea of a major parliamentary initiative in the month of May, so as to stand by and assist the Irish Presidency, not leave it alone with its colleagues who, by themselves, will not make a better Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples