Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-05-21-Speech-2-674-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20130521.46.2-674-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would just like to say that Ms Sommer once again completely misrepresents the position of the rapporteur and indeed the majority of this House. To the Commissioner I would say that I welcome what he says. He is not in charge of the dossier, but actually the recasting agreement was not followed by the Commission, and this was pointed out by our Committee.
It was stated that efforts were supported in order for us to try and reach an agreement. I have to say that the efforts of the Presidency and ourselves were completely undermined by the Commission in their backstage workings, which misrepresented the position of Parliament. I deeply regret that Commissioner Šefcovic is not present. He was also invited to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). He refused. I have to say that I begin to wonder whether he is actually in charge of the dossier or whether it has been passed to Ms Catherine Day.
But let us look at the reality. The Commission has never presented any proposals, amendments or compromises during our trialogues, and its position was to simply sit and say ‘No’. So therefore I say to the Commission: if this is not accurate, please publish and present the proposals you made. I am ready to publish Parliament’s proposals and I am sure the Danish Presidency will do likewise, and I want to ask the Commission what next steps they envisage should this deadlock continue. Will they withdraw the regulation and allow the Court of Justice to do the work that we legislators should be doing for our citizens? The Court of Justice has reached several far-reaching and important judgments for the understanding of the new legal framework on access to documents created by the Lisbon Treaty, and even recently in its conclusions on the appeal on access information, the Advocate-General brilliantly stated that legislating is by definition a law-making activity and that a democratic society can only function through the use of procedure.
So we have the Advocate-General siding with Parliament: openness and transparency. Of course we need to reach a compromise, but there are certain minimums that I cannot trade off. For instance, we need to extend the scope of the regulation to all institutions, offices, agencies and bodies. We need clarification that no Member State veto exists. We need legislative transparency – no exceptions for certain kinds of legal advice. But for the rest, Parliament is ready to find a compromise. We are ready to sit down.
This House will draft a resolution for the June plenary, despite the efforts of Ms Sommer in opposing the debate that we are having tonight. We will put down what we believe is the way forward. Let us work together to break this deadlock. But Parliament cannot do it without the Commission or the Council, and should this deadlock remain, I tell you now that citizens will further disconnect from the European project. At a crucial time you will have failed Europe and its founders. Parliament will not be a part of such a damaging or reprehensible strategy."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples