Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.14.3-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Members’ Statute that we are discussing has to lay down the Members’ prerogatives, in the first instance. It must state who the Member of the European Parliament is, what his rights and duties are, and what his immunities are, transforming him from a national delegate to a representative of the European peoples in their entirety.
It is undue interference, which I have reported to you, Mr President, in order to defend our independence and our sovereignty. The Luxembourg Presidency needs to be reminded to respect the role and the prerogatives of Parliament. If the Presidency had not wasted time criticising Parliament or finding specious, trumped-up obstacles, and had lavished more energy on preventing the failure of the Council, it would perhaps have acted wisely. It is now seeking to take home at least one positive result, by promoting the announcement of this Statute, which I believe is an important moment in the life of Parliament.
Parliament is aware of the crisis of Europe, which we have discussed all afternoon, and of the need to change method. Europe has to overcome the period in which the weight of bureaucracy prevailed over the dynamics of the issues. Europe is a political issue, not a stereotype, for which clear guidelines are needed, and not a compromise at any cost. I hope that the United Kingdom intends to begin a new course of action, just as a new course of action also needs to be begun by Parliament.
I am sure that the Council will not reject the Statute on the grounds of this amendment, the content of which lays down a possibility that the Council itself formally stated could be accepted. That is the legal basis. What if these measures did not exist? In my opinion, Mr President, they could be considered invalid by the Court of Justice. The exchange of letters between the President of Parliament and the President-in-Office of the Council carries strong weight at a political level, but not for the Court of Justice: therefore, if they are accepted politically, why not lay it down in the Statute, unless there is a reservation in the minds of some people who I hope do not wish to stoop to similar trickery?
I will conclude with an appeal, Mr President: let us approve the Statute as tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs. Significant cooperation has taken place among all of the Members, and it is a balanced text, which will enter into force in 2009, which leaves adequate transition periods to adapt to the new system. It is a genuine first step towards the single Statute for Members of the European Parliament.
In essence, the Statute is a fundamental pillar of the process of European integration, and it is not approved in order to govern salaries or the reimbursement of expenses, but to govern and enhance the role and function of the Member in the European Community.
A standardised approach to salaries would risk being discriminatory, because it deals with different situations in the same manner. Those who gave prominence to that part of the Statute – which I define as of lesser importance and which only serves a demagogic purpose in stirring the emotions of the mass media – are mistaken and have not grasped the profound meaning that new rules at a European level can have.
In my opinion, Mr Juncker, the decision that Parliament is about to make in a time of crisis is important, because working towards providing Parliament with a more European function is worthwhile and fundamental for the credibility of the Union. It is for that reason that the Council and the Member States, who do not want the European Parliament to be strengthened, oppose the Statute.
We came close to agreement in the last parliamentary term, when Mr Rothley, a great legal expert, and I provided significant input. The European Parliament in June and December played its part by listening to the suggestions of the Council, which the Council, however, after we had adopted them, subsequently withdrew and has not since approved. I should like to mention Mr Lehne, who provided a significant, intelligent and cooperative contribution to the text in question; in December 2003, he summed it up neatly: ’we have been negotiating now for nearly five years, and we cannot continue any longer in a situation where the Council leads Parliament a dance like a bear with a ring through its nose in a circus arena.’ I repeat today the words that Mr Lehne spoke at that time.
Members of the European Parliament have to have their own autonomous reference standard, which no longer derives from their Member States of origin but from their being representatives of the Community. In an official statement, the Council undertook to start up a process designed to provide us with common rules with regard to parliamentary immunity. It is a strong political commitment, which I welcome and which we would like to see confirmed today in this House by the Luxembourg Presidency.
The text that we have approved within the Committee on Legal Affairs takes account of the umpteen suggestions of the Council and represents an important balancing point, Mr President, on which we must meet. Once again, we Members have been ready to pay a price in order to have the Statute and I have to say that that is also true for the Italian Members, considered to be ill-disposed to the salary, who have made a contribution, since it gives them a drastic cut in their allowances.
So, although we have accepted all of the Council’s requests, the Luxembourg Presidency has still expressed some doubts, and opposes a recital – number 12 – that I proposed and that the Committee approved, a recital enabling the Member States to lay down supplementary measures in order to make the status of the Members of the European Parliament equal to members of national parliaments. Recital 12 is a mirror-image of recital 11, which in contrast allows the Member States to pay national rates. If some countries are allowed to nationalise the system, effectively reducing our salary, why cannot others supplement it instead or give us the facilities that they provide to members of national parliaments?
Why is it so difficult to understand, ladies and gentlemen, that the Statute provides the legal basis – and this is important – for allowing the Member States to provide those benefits that they also give to members of parliament in their own country? By sending a personal letter and by failing to consult the Council, the Luxembourg Presidency – I have to say – has reacted hastily to this amendment, stating that it does not agree with it. It has sent a letter that, in my opinion and – I believe – in the opinion of the majority of
Members, is unacceptable from an institutional point of view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples