Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-23-Speech-1-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091123.21.1-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you firstly for your tolerance and for your presence.
A third issue where there has been some controversy is how to deal with the principle of subsidiarity. We have settled quite easily the role that the committees will play in this matter, and there is consensus around that. The only point that has emerged is what happens if a committee says ‘no, there is no breach of subsidiarity and the legislation should go ahead’. Should there be a safety valve for Members of the European Parliament to raise the matter on the floor of this House? I have put down an amendment, and others have put down similar amendments, suggesting that if one tenth of the Members of the European Parliament reckon there is an issue of subsidiarity, then that matter should be debated on the floor of the House. I think that is a sensible safety valve.
The last issue that I want to mention is the issue of observers, and whether we should have observers in advance of the 18 new Members taking their seats. My view is that we absolutely should. However, the crucial issue – and, again, there is consensus in the committee on this – is whether these observers should be people who would otherwise have been elected to Parliament. That is critical for our credibility. If we allow the Member States simply to appoint anyone to take the role of observer – and we do have rumours that some Member States want to appoint national parliamentarians – I think that would be entirely unacceptable.
I conclude by saying that I am pleased that this Parliament, by its vote this week, will have in place on 1 December, from the minute the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, a set of rules allowing us to exercise our new powers immediately. That is to the credit of the people who worked in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs before the summer, and I again repeat my thanks to Richard Corbett for all the efforts that he made in this regard.
When I first stood for the European Parliament in 1984, I remarked to one of my then colleagues, Ken Collins, a Scottish Member, that I was wondering whether I was doing the wrong thing, because Parliament did not seem to have much teeth when it came to legislative matters. Ken said to me that it was true that Parliament did not have a lot of teeth, but, if you asked any mother of a young baby, you would know that you can make a big impression with your gums.
This Parliament did make a big impression with its gums in terms of using the right to be consulted on legislation. Since then, we have had the Single European Act, which took the European Parliament from being a baby to infanthood, Maastricht which took us through puberty, the Nice and the Amsterdam Treaties, which took us into adulthood, and now the Lisbon Treaty, which I believe takes this Parliament into the full rights of an adult Parliament, comparable to any other democratic institution in the European Union.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to present a report adjusting our Rules of Procedure to take into account the new powers we have as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.
I am honoured, but to be honest, I am also slightly disappointed, because this report should really be called the Corbett report. My colleague, Richard Corbett, did all the hard work on this report before the elections. He made it very easy for me in terms of the Lisbon aspects of the report. Although we have had controversy over the non-Lisbon aspects of the report, Richard Corbett did an excellent job in terms of the Lisbon aspects and I really only had to pick up the baton.
The report prepares us for the new powers we get on trade policy, where we now have full assent along with the Council on all trade matters, and our new powers in terms of agriculture and fishing, where we now have codecision. It also refines our role in the appointment of the European Commission, establishes a new relationship between the European Parliament and the national parliaments, and paves the way for new Members of this Parliament.
Most of these issues have been dealt with, as I have said, without controversy. Let me just briefly mention where we have some disagreements between the groups, though I should say in passing that the political groups have shown excellent cooperation over this matter. All the major shadows and coordinators have been very supportive, but there are one or two issues that we have not been able to resolve.
Firstly, who should chair our delegation to COSAC? Should it be the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs or should it be a vice-president of Parliament, as is presently the situation? My own view is that it should be a vice-president; the committee has decided that it should be the Chair. In the end, the plenary will decide, but I make the point that COSAC is about more than interinstitutional relations. It also deals with policy matters and that is why historically, we have had a vice-president chairing the delegation.
In terms of our relationship with the national parliaments, we have had some disagreement in the committee on how much detail we should go into, and how much the rules should prescribe that relationship. I have managed to reach a compromise with Mr Brok, who has been very accommodating in this matter, which lays down some detail but which still leaves enough room for the President of Parliament to negotiate with his counterparts in the national parliaments the exact modalities of how we will cooperate with the national parliaments."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples