Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-27-Speech-2-501-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110927.29.2-501-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Firstly, I must say to Mr Cohn-Bendit that I have had more opportunity than him to hear and to listen to Mr Van Rompuy. It is not true that he has said nothing intelligent to date. He is a good President of the European Council and, therefore, I cannot understand why anyone would question his personality and the role that he plays with skill and, all too often – more often than you are present – great determination, where necessary.
Mr Van Rompuy is not the man that people often describe him as. He is described as being a pen-pusher for the major shareholders. That is not true – unless I have become one of the EU’s major shareholders – as he consults everybody.
As I defend one principle, others attack a principle. If we are going to look at the finer details, you will find me on the side of those who have a flair for detail. I will say one thing, however: I do not agree with those that say Van Rompuy is useless.
Furthermore, it is not the job of the Commission to govern. The general architecture and economics of the Treaty, or indeed the Treaties, makes no mention of the Commission being intended to govern. The Commission proposes. I wish it and all the others would show greater and fuller respect for the Commission’s potential monopoly on initiative and its role as the driving force behind proposals. However, turning the Commission into a government, no, I do not believe our institutional order would allow it now.
Let us go back to the Community method: you know as well as I do; the Commission puts forward the proposals, and the Council makes the decisions in consultation with Parliament as set out in the Treaties. I am all for extending the scope of codecision.
As the Treaty stands, however, we cannot do what you say. I agree that we must not increase the number of bodies, inner circles, darkened rooms where those supposed to be governing Europe can meet. The fact is, the Eurogroup is not a parallel structure. The Eurogroup, while being informal, was established under the Treaty of Lisbon having first been set up informally by us after the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam.
So, I agree that we need to discuss reinforcing the Commission. I am the first to support a Commission that is as strong as possible, but do not think for one second, do not imagine that governments will disappear completely from the decision-making process for the euro area or the European Union. Just look at the ratification debates, including in one of your two countries next Thursday, at the Bundestag: governments are accountable to their own parliaments. You cannot pull down the existing support structures.
I urge us to return to the Community method which has produced good results, and that, for the time being, we accept the intergovernmental method, mindful of the fact that at a later date, we will have to include in the Treaties what has been experienced, dare I say, at intergovernmental level. As the Treaties stand, however, the institutionally noble solutions that you mentioned, which I like, are not applicable."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples