Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-16-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061116.3.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has clearly signalled its consent to an EU communication policy and commends Commissioner Wallström's work. Indeed, it is high time we had such a policy, judging by the Eurobarometer findings which show the extent of the gap between our institutions and the expectations of our citizens. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs also welcomes the Commission's focus on two-way communication, which is very much a new departure, involving the institutions addressing the public and the public addressing the institutions.
The problem is that, after having proclaimed this excellent principle at the start of the White Paper, the Commission has tried rather desperately to identify practical ways in which the public can express themselves, and this, Commissioner, is perhaps the main shortcoming of your proposal. You might find it useful to borrow from parliamentary proposals, such as the one aimed at setting up an open citizens' forum, the consultation mechanism that will be piloted in 2007.
Our committee is not opposed in principle to a new interinstitutional instrument, but it does ask for careful study of the guarantees and obligations implicit in such an instrument. It stresses, moreover, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights already defines citizens' information rights and that our Parliament’s prerogatives must be respected come what may, particularly its right to address itself freely to the people of Europe.
It is also essential to take account of the very specific rhythm of the European debate, which is entirely separate from the national agendas. In this respect, we wish to reiterate our desire to have an annual plenary debate on the subject here in Parliament. We are in favour of the use of new technologies, provided they do not create a digital divide between those who have access to modern technology and those who do not. We also believe there is a need for better stratification of partnerships between civil society, European political parties and journalists – without prejudice, of course, to the independence of the media. We will even go so far as to make the iconoclastic proposal that a local European administration network be established to bring Brussels closer to the people.
What my report leaves unsaid relates to the legal basis. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs did not wish to express its opinion on Article 308. By a very narrow margin, it voted against explicit reference to that article, but by another very slim margin – and our thanks are due here to Mr Duff – it decided against formally ruling out recourse to Article 308, if you still follow the reasoning. The debate on the legal basis therefore remains wide open, although from a personal and tactical point of view I unreservedly endorse the proposals made by your rapporteur, Mr Herrero-Tejedor, whose open-mindedness, conviviality and constructive approach I commend."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples