БЪЛГАРСКИ ФОРУМ ЗА БЪДЕЩЕТО
Европейски консенсус по българско предложение
ЗАСЕДАНИЕ НА БЮРОТО, ПРЕЗИДЕНТСКАТА И ПОСТОЯННАТА КОМИСИЯ НА ПАСЕ В СОФИЯ, 26-27 НОЕМВРИ 2015г.
ОТ СОФИЯ ПАСЕ СВИКА ДЪРЖАВНИТЕ ГЛАВИ И ПРЕМИЕРИТЕ НА 47-ТЕ СТРАНИ-ЧЛЕНКИ НА СЪВЕТА НА ЕВРОПА - ПО БЪЛГАРСКО ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕhttp://toshev.blogspot.bg/2015/11/47.html
на Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа
Заседанието на Парламентарната Асамблея в София днес, препотвърди целта на отците - основатели на Съвета на Европа, които като следствие от ужасите на Втората Световна война, създадоха тази организация с предназначението да “постигне по-голямо единство между своите членове” за да се запазят и реализират “идеалите и принципите, които са тяхното общо наследство”.
Както е посочено изрично в чл.3 от Статута на Организацията, нейните членове, трябва да сътрудничат искрено и ефективно за реализацията точно на тази цел.
Като чества 40-тата годишнина на Заключителния документ от Хелзинки, Асамблеята желае да подчертае важната роля, която изигра неговото подписване, довело до края на Студената война.
Тя приема този документ като пример за това, какво е възможно да се постигне, когато страните съгласувано положат усилия да оставят настрана своите различия и да се стремят към разбирателство.
Асамблеята е искрено убедена, че многобройните политически предизвикателства, с които Европа се сблъсква днес, както вътрешни, така и извън нейните границите изискват общ отговор на базата на споделните принципи и ценности, диалог, доверие и солидарност.
В тези критични моменти, страните-членки на Съвета на Европа, трябва да се сплотят около това, което ги обединява, отколкото това, което ги разделя и да предотвратят издигането на нови стени и очертаването на разделителни линии.
За тази цел и признавайки ключовата роля, която Съветът на Европа може да играе защитавайки и подпомагайки демократичната сигурност, Асамблеята призовава за Среща на държавните глави и ръководителите на правителства, на която страните да препотвърдят на най-високо политическо ниво, своите ангажименти спрямо общите ценности и принципи на демокрацията, човешките права и върховенството на закона, защитавани от Организацията.
Внесена от Джема Грозданова (България, ЕНП/ХД),Ръководител на българската делегация
В София : Конференция на Председателите на парламентарните Комисии по външна политика на страните-членки на Съвета на Европаhttp://toshev.blogspot.bg/2016/02/blog-post_8.html
Важно е, че в този момент подарихме на Европа
"Съединението прави силата"
"Съединението прави силата"
Лъчезар Тошев пред news.bg, интервю на Весела Веселинова
Sofia Declaration of 27 November 2015 adopted by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly
Political Affairs Committee backs proposal for fourth Council of Europe Summit
- Political Affairs and Democracy
The Political Affairs Committee today backed the proposal for a fourth Council of Europe Summit.
On the basis of a memorandum prepared by Michele Nicoletti (Italy, SOC), it stressed that such a Summit should primarily aim at re-launching the Council of Europe's core mission: a pan-European organisation, offering a common legal space to 820 million Europeans and thus capable of promoting democratic security throughout the continent.
"We must make sure to avoid a paternalistic approach and treat all member States of the Organisation equally and in mutual respect, whether they are small or big, whether they are old member or have joined more recently.
At the same time, it is important to focus on what unites us rather what divides us," Mr Nicoletti stressed.
The committee agreed that in a Europe which has profoundly changed since the last Summit, held in Warsaw in 2005, and when the whole world seems to be changing, a Summit would offer the unique opportunity to member States to reaffirm, at the highest political level, their commitment to the common values and principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, upheld by the Organisation, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Michele Nicoletti is due to present his report “Call for a Council of Europe Summit to defend and promote democratic security in Europe” at the PACE plenary session in October 2017.
Link to the Memorandum of the Rapporteur
Some reminiscences about the debates on the Reform of PACE in 2011, when the principle of equality between the members of the Assembly and between the member-states of the Council of Europe was successfully defended!
2011 ORDINARY SESSION
Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 3 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly” (Doc. 12627), presented by Mr Mignon on behalf of the Ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Toshev.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe needs such reforms as can make it more efficient and better represented in the European architecture. It should remain an important actor in Europe, providing the unique opportunity for dialogue between its European Union and non-EU member states, as well as being open for co-operation with its observers, such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Israel and the Holy See. That list will be further enlarged for our Partners for Democracy, the first of which is the Parliament of Morocco. We hope that Morocco will be followed by other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries.
The Assembly should continue to be a forum for dialogue not only between states but between citizens of our united Europe. An important recommendation of the rapporteur, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, is the aim to increase the visibility of the Assembly’s work and reinforce interaction between the Assembly and national parliaments. I fully subscribe to that proposal.
I want once again to introduce the idea that the committees of the Assembly should receive an annual ticket to organise joint meetings with the relevant committees of the national parliaments of the member states. Of course, that proposal would not extend to the Rules Committee and the Monitoring Committee, because of their specific areas of activity.
If the proposal is accepted, many more political stakeholders will be involved in our debates and the enlarged dialogue will support European society as a real democratic community. The agenda of such meetings should be drafted jointly with the chairpersons of the national parliamentary committees and representatives of the countries in the neighbourhood of the Council of Europe, as well as interested NGOs and media, could also be invited where appropriate.
An important principle in the Organisation up until now has been the equality of member states and members of the Assembly. That principle has been observed within the European family since the very beginning of our Assembly’s existence.
I was astonished to see that the Bureau unanimously adopted the proposal to allocate the position of ex-officio members of the new Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to the chairpersons of five privileged delegations from the biggest member states – France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom.
The committee is composed of members proposed by the political groups, so why should part of its membership be elected in a different way?
Every delegation should be treated equally, whether it is large or small, and I am strongly convinced that the political groups could nominate the leaders of the five delegations through the ordinary procedure.
I am certain that nobody could oppose their nomination by those groups.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Guţu.
THE PRESIDENT – We now come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Minchev, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin and Mr Falzon, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.4.2, to insert the following sub-paragraph:
“to grant the committees of the Assembly, except the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, an annual ticket to organize a joint meeting with the relevant committees in the national parliaments of the member states.”
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 4.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The amendment speaks for itself. We are dealing with the same issues and such meetings would strengthen the position of the Assembly and those involved in the dialogue. With the involvement of national parliaments, we could achieve our goals.
THE PRESIDENT – We now come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Mignon, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Reiss, Ms Marland-Militello, Mr Rouquet, Mr Gardetto and Mr Marquet, which is, in Amendment 4, to replace the word “grant” with the following word: “invite” and, after the word “Affairs,”, to insert the following words: “to use”.
I call Mr Mignon to support Sub-Amendment 1.
Mr MIGNON (France) spoke in favour of Sub-Amendment 1, and said that in principle he agreed with Amendment 4 but he wished to change the word “grant” to “invite” and to insert “to use” after “affairs” to avoid any misunderstanding and to make completely clear the powers and privileges of each committee and to spell out clearly what each committee did.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I am fully in favour.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is in favour.
What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Mignon.
Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is still in favour.
THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.
We now come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin, Mr Falzon, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Palihovici and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.4.3.
If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 32 falls.
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The amendment refers to the proposal to grant special new privileges to the Assembly’s biggest delegations. I oppose that proposal.
I was encouraged by the readiness of the rapporteur to co-operate with those who oppose him and who are trying to keep the spirit of equality in this Assembly. I would support his new proposal, which meets this point and takes our concern into consideration.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MIGNON (France) said the ad hoc committee was against Amendment 32 but was offering an oral amendment which he hoped would deal with the concerns expressed in the original amendment
THE PRESIDENT – I am assuming that the committee is against, Mr Mignon?
Mr MIGNON (France) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
I have received an oral amendment from Mr Mignon, on behalf of the Ad hoc Committee on Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, which reads as follows:
“In paragraph 6.4.3 of the draft resolution, to replace the words ‘of the five largest national delegations (France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom)’ with the following words ‘to increase the number of members with a view to ensuring an equitable geographical representation of members. With this in mind each member state shall not have more than one member on this Committee’.”
If this oral amendment is agreed to, Amendment 32 falls.
I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.
In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Mignon to support Oral Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.
Mr MIGNON (France) spoke on behalf of the ad hoc committee in support of Oral Amendment 1, saying that he thought this dealt with the concerns raised by Mr Toshev and his co-signatures as well as the other members who had supported Amendment 32. This oral amendment would ensure a more equitable geographic representation of members on the committee.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? I call Mr Vareikis to speak. You have 30 seconds.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Maybe from one point of view, this looks like a good idea. On the other hand, we will have to invent a mechanism. How will we manage to keep to the geography and to the rules? The members of the Rules Committee are appointed by the political groups, so this probably needs more clarification. For the time being, it might be better not to have it.
THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour, Mr Mignon?
Mr MIGNON (France) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
Oral Amendment 1 is agreed to and therefore Amendment 32 falls.