Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-05-Speech-3-362"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100505.72.3-362"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, please allow me to begin my speech with a line from Rilke: ‘
’
Rilke was the favourite poet of our recently deceased fellow Member, Dimitris Tsatsos. Some time ago now, on 19 November 1997, Dimitris Tsatsos and I had the honour of submitting the report on the Treaty of Amsterdam to this House.
The first question is whether or not a Convention is necessary in order to prepare the amendment to Protocol (No 36). The second is whether or not the Heads of State or Government can call an Intergovernmental Conference to amend Protocol (No 36).
Both questions are linked, although they are dealt with in two different reports. I will begin with the calling of an Intergovernmental Conference. As I have said, we are dealing with the political result of applying the Treaty of Lisbon and we are also dealing with a transitional and exceptional solution that will only last for the duration of this parliamentary term. Therefore, that Intergovernmental Conference will confine itself to something that has already been agreed: how to distribute those 18 MEPs among 12 countries.
Consequently, Mr President, there is no debate. I believe that the Intergovernmental Conference can be very quickly called and can even resolve the issue in a single morning, given that the political decision has already been taken.
For that reason, I am going to ask for a ‘yes’ vote for an Intergovernmental Conference and say that I do not believe that a Convention is required for an issue that has already been resolved. We are in favour of holding the Intergovernmental Conference; we are against calling a Convention.
It was in that very report on the Treaty of Amsterdam that we proposed that any amendment to Treaties be prepared beforehand by a Convention.
We called that the Community method. Indeed, it is that Convention method that was used in preparing the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, above all, the Constitutional Treaty.
I wish to remember Dimitris Tsatsos today in particular, as we are on the threshold of carrying out the first reform of the Treaty of Lisbon, which, in the last analysis, Mr President, is the Constitutional Treaty for which we fought so hard.
That first reform, which is going to consist of the amendment of Protocol (No 36) of the Treaty of Lisbon, is caused by an anomaly because, at the time the elections to this Parliament were held in June last year, the Treaty of Lisbon had not come into force owing to the vicissitudes with which we are all familiar.
Consequently, the last parliamentary elections were held under the Treaty of Nice, which was in force at that time, and said Treaty of Nice provides for the existence of 736 MEPs, as opposed to the 751 provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.
To complicate matters even further, Mr President, the 1976 Act lays down that an MEP’s mandate lasts for five years. This means that we cannot now simply apply the number laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, namely the 751 MEPs, given that under Lisbon a certain country loses three Members who have been elected and, therefore, cannot leave Parliament during this parliamentary term.
That, Mr President, is why Protocol (No 36) has to be amended in order to enable the Lisbon agreements to come into force, and why during this parliamentary term, 2009-2014, when the amendment of Protocol (No 36) comes into force, this Parliament will, exceptionally, have 754 Members.
That is why, Mr President, the European Council addressed a letter to you asking that, in accordance with Article 48(2) of the Treaty, this Parliament give its opinion on two questions."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples