Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.12.1-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It gives me real pleasure to be addressing the meeting today, because we are talking about two documents prepared by Parliament, by Members of this Parliament, by an outstanding member of the Committee on Petitions which I chair, Mr Hammerstein Mintz, and because we are also discussing a report prepared by Mr Cashman on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – he is Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Petitions and an outstanding member of it.
One of the starting points of the discussion is the report of the European Ombudsman, Professor Diamandouros, on the openness of the Council’s work. The work of Professor Diamandouros, our European Ombudsman, is also closely associated with our Committee. In addressing you on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, but also as Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, I am especially pleased to be able to speak of those three extremely well prepared documents and I would like to congratulate their authors, Mr Hammerstein Mintz and Mr Michael Cashman, on their excellent work.
We have been speaking of openness today. Sometimes you hear it said, though we have not heard such views today, that not everything needs to be open, that there are negotiations, discussions, preparations. Indeed, we agree with this. These negotiations, discussions and preparations need to take place behind the scenes. We are not demanding the sort of openness that would enable us to eavesdrop on what ministers discuss with colleagues in their offices, or ahead of Council meetings. Once the Council begins its debates, however, we want to know what it is debating and who represents what point of view.
There are at least three reasons for demanding such openness. The first reason is simply that we have a right to the truth, and therefore we want to know what the truth is. Secondly, we have a right of oversight. We have a right of oversight as individual Members of the European Parliament and as the European Parliament as a body, and we also have a right of oversight as members and as citizens of the European Union. In addition, our colleagues, the Members of Parliament of the Member States whose ministers speak in the Council, also have a right to know. In other words, both European and national public opinion have a right to know what takes place in the Council.
There is also an issue which is especially close to the heart of the Committee on Petitions, and that is bringing European institutions closer to the citizen. If we say that there is a crisis of confidence in European institutions, it is this openness of debates which should overcome this crisis. In other words, we want there to be confidence in Europe, we want the confidence towards which, I am very pleased to say, the Committee on Petitions and its two outstanding members, the authors of these reports, are working."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples