Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-20-Speech-3-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070620.3.3-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will confine my remarks today to the procedure and will not comment on the many other points that have been addressed. In terms of substance I can quite frankly echo Mr Langen’s assessment of Malta and Cyprus and his comments on Parliament’s approval.
I will therefore concentrate on the procedure. Here I will simply take the words of the Minister of State, Mr Glosar, as my starting point. He said that we should not primarily consider the procedure. There was talk of sympathy, requests and considering. For the next procedure I should like to say: we will sympathetically consider Council and the Commission’s requests to make our decisions quickly. Next time, however, we will also use the procedure that Parliament provides for such matters. We fully understand the Council’s constraints with its meeting schedule. The Commission’s constraints too, and the 1 January deadline: all of these things are well understood in Parliament. However, if there is no understanding the other way round, that we in Parliament also have a particular procedure and that we are now unable, and not for the first time, to observe one of the basic rules of that procedure properly, for example the translation deadlines, then next time round there will be consequences.
We can therefore only press for an appropriate agreement to be adopted between the institutions. Otherwise the Council would have to see to it that Parliament were no longer consulted in the future. It has of course been mentioned that this is enshrined in the relevant Treaty, and if it is enshrined in the Treaty then it has to be respected. The German Foreign Office and all European foreign ministries have made repeated attempts to stop Parliament becoming too powerful. This, however, applies to other fields.
Nevertheless, one area that is very important to me is data provision. That is why we in Parliament want to have sufficient time to deal with this. We have seen what happened with Greece and Hungary. We hold the Commission responsible for guaranteeing that the data on which the decision for an accession is based is also scrutinised as thoroughly as possible, so that we can assume that it is correct. I need only refer to the comments of the Hungarian Finance Minister, who, following what happened in Hungary, publicly philosophised about the various possibilities that are actually open to a finance minister when supplying data to Brussels. The ECB President, Mr Trichet, has also pointed out that collecting data in the European Union is problematic.
For us it is crucial that the Commission does not pass the buck to Eurostat in such cases but that it takes responsibility itself. However, we should also like to strengthen the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States. It is unacceptable that the Commission should have to comply with such requests when the Member States continue to use all of the means at their disposal to restrict the Commission’s supervisory powers in areas where they really do need to be exercised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples