Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-22-Speech-4-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080522.6.4-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first I want to say thank you and to welcome the various statements made here, all of which are in support of Mr Lehideux’s report. Obviously I also support it because I believe it really is a big step forward. I can already see and envisage new prospects that – whatever some may say – are opening here and I am therefore delighted that we will no doubt achieve a broad consensus on this proposal. Let me reply to two objections that were put forward.
First, Amendment 10 to Article 7: I would just remind Mrs Stauner that there is a risk of conflict of interest, since Parliament is the authority that gives the budget discharge. Legally, at least, there would clearly be a conflict of interests.
Secondly, I think it is sensible to separate the powers. I was a parliamentarian for many years and I never claimed any responsibilities beyond those due to parliamentarians. The fundamental role of a parliamentarian is not to govern, I am sorry to say. The fundamental role of a parliamentarian is to scrutinise and to make laws, and of course to monitor governments or executives. I do not, therefore, understand that shift in emphasis that some people seem to find normal. I am speaking for myself, but we are holding a parliamentary debate and I believe for Parliament to confuse its monitoring task with a governing task, which is incompatible with its role, would detract from its fundamental task. That is how a parliament can be destroyed. For a parliament to want to become a kind of governing assembly would not be compatible with the high principle of democracy. I am saying that because I do believe the separation of powers is important.
I am convinced that the compromise reached is the most effective one, primarily because it ensures Parliament’s independence in carrying out its monitoring function.
I admit I am often taken aback by some of the views expressed, but then that is what we are here for. I believe it was Mr Clark who said the Commission was exceeding its competences and that the European Training Foundation could be counterproductive. That is quite contrary to reality, experience and totally independent evaluations of the remarkable work done by the Foundation.
As Commissioner responsible for development, I can already foresee – thanks to the main amendment, which will no doubt be adopted – the prospects of effectiveness, the positive prospects that will be offered, especially, as some speakers suggested, in countries within my remit where vocational training is a crucial factor. I am thinking, for example, of the centre for migration management and information in Mali, a pilot project we will soon be starting up. I can imagine what a useful role the Foundation could play there.
So I can only welcome the outcome, and I totally reject the criticism that it is counterproductive. Clearly, people cannot change their nature: those who do not like Europe say exaggerated things and that – let me say with all due respect to the Member concerned – is exaggerated; it is therefore totally meaningless."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples