Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-16-Speech-2-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070116.2.2-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, dear colleagues, since 2004, we have known that Mr Poettering would be our next President, but we can still avoid a coronation. Today’s vote is a secret ballot. May I urge every colleague to use his or her vote in the first round to show Mr Poettering our urgent need for reforms.
As regards staff policy, most leading administrative posts are now divided between the two big groups. Our next President should propose a new system for the future and immediately order all staff to cut their special links to their parties. All staff must be politically impartial and serve Members equally.
On the President’s own position, our next President could establish a ‘new’ old tradition. Why not stop taking part in political group meetings and visible voting, and show us that our next President is the dedicated president for all of us? Why not introduce this good old practice from the first parliament in the world, the Westminster Parliament?
Finally, I would like to welcome Mr Joseph Daul as the new leader of the PPE-DE Group. People are innocent until the opposite is proved. I would like to know if this principle was stated properly in the PPE-DE Group when they rejected Mr Hökmark in favour of Mr Daul in a very narrow vote.
Concerning the issue of one seat, at the next meeting of the Conference of Presidents our new President should propose an early debate on our seats and our calendar for 2008. We could simply decide to meet in the town where the Commission is meeting, not mentioning Brussels or Strasbourg, and then invite the Commission President and relevant Commissioners to explain their proposals from the same day’s meeting and to receive our political comments.
This is how a real parliament works. Then we could have one fixed hour of well-organised voting in all areas of joint decision-making, allowing us to reach the magic 393 votes behind our amendments. After the French presidential elections in May, we could then invite the new President of France and the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Luxembourg to a debate on a lasting solution for all seats.
Concerning voting, our new President should refuse any voting that is not properly prepared by the committees. We must vote on real political differences, not on technicalities. Last year we had 5 500 votes in which very few Members can say what they voted on.
As regards better legislation, Parliament has a real influence in the conciliation committees, but we are badly organised for that. We need qualified legislative experts in all fields in order to balance the Commission. We need to focus on legislation, instead of wasting hours on debate in areas where Parliament has no say.
On the allocation of rapporteurships and posts, we need to be more flexible in order to allow personal qualifications to be taken into account. The D’Hondt system is simply too rigid. Why not use the Sainte-Laguë method instead? It is also a proportional system, but it allows both the smaller delegations in the big groups – that is, the majority of the Members – and the smallest groups and independents to have more interesting first choices.
On the façades of our buildings here in Strasbourg, they still campaign for a ‘Yes’ to a Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch voters. The buildings do not belong to a propaganda ministry; this is a parliament. Parliament makes decisions, but it should hold no view as an institution. There are majorities and minorities, but all views are equal and all Members are equal, so, please, order your staff to clean the House of institutional propaganda in support of specific views.
On representation abroad, so far, Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs has sent 58 representatives to negotiate the Constitution with the national parliaments. Of these, 54 were in favour of the Constitution and only 4 were against. In 7 of 11 meetings, the ‘No’ side was not even represented at all.
These figures do not proportionately represent the 137 Members who voted ‘No’ to the Constitution. Our new President must safeguard fair representation of different views when we are represented abroad. There must be equal opportunities for the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ sides when we resume the constitutional process under the German Presidency. A democracy is also judged by how it treats its minorities."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples