Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101018.14.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I joined Parliament 18 years ago now. Then, the European Parliament was a consultative parliament. It was a parliament that did not have any powers.
For goodness’ sake! The Council is indeed the other colegislator. We do want to legislate, and we are legislating a great deal and successfully with the Council of Ministers. We are colegislators on an equal footing. We do not need to gain any sort of small advantage. What we want is for this to be effective, and I believe that the agreement is going to help to achieve this.
Allow me to say, Mr Šefčovič, that you took the bull by the horns – a very bullfighting-related expression in my country – when you said that the interpretation of Articles 6 and 7 of the resolution is Parliament’s interpretation in relation to international agreements and international conferences. I do not believe there is anything strange here. What we are talking about here is Parliament being informed and participating through the Commission and through negotiation, nothing more. What is the purpose? The purpose is for us to know what the Commission has done when we have to adopt it here.
Therefore – and I will finish here Madam President – congratulations to both of you. I believe that this is a good omen: as they would say in
‘the beginning of a beautiful friendship’.
In this process over the past 18 years, we have seen Parliament change from a consultative parliament to a fully colegislative one. Our good friend, Francisco Lucas Pires, who witnessed this process, said that it changed from a deliberative parliament to a legislative parliament.
Therefore, the text that we are going to adopt on Wednesday is the culmination of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament on the framework agreement.
I confess that when I tell my family that I am going to Strasbourg to take part in the debate on the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission, I have to give them quite a lengthy explanation. This is because, obviously, these things do not exist in national parliaments or at national level, so people do not understand why an agreement has to be reached between the Commission and Parliament in order to implement what the treaties say.
However, it does have to be done. It has to be done for a very basic reason, which Mr Rangel and Mr Šefčovič have already stated: because we want to be efficient.
What the framework agreement is essentially seeking to do is to resolve all the practical obstacles that could arise in terms of legislation, parliamentary control and codes of conduct.
I therefore believe that it is a good blend of European democracy. It is ‘consensual’ democracy rather than the ‘conflictive’ democracy that we have in our countries.
In consensual democracy, the intelligent thing to do is to find solutions to any problems that could arise. Therefore, the framework agreement is an instrument for preventing future problems and making what the treaties say a reality. As we have a new treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, it makes sense to implement it.
I would like to congratulate Mr Rangel and the team that he led, and the European Commission, because I believe that they have reached a very reasonable agreement. When reading the content of the agreement, one cannot fail to be surprised at the voices being heard in some national parliaments questioning whether it poses a threat to the Council’s powers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples