Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-217"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@cs1
"Fru formand, jeg kan ikke gøre for det, men når jeg ser navnet Winkler deroppe, tænker jeg straks på Henry Winkler. Husker De den fyr, der var Fonzie i
. Det er godt at have en østrigsk minister som Fonzie, der vender tommelfingeren opad for bedre lovgivning!
Vi behandler tre indbyrdes forbundne emner i denne mødeperiode. Det første, som vi behandlede i går, drejede sig om Rådets gennemsigtighed og åbenhed. Det andet er denne debat om bedre regulering og lovgivning, og det tredje, som vi skal behandle i aften, drejer sig om medborgerskab. Jeg støtter alle disse initiativer, jeg synes, at de er glimrende, jeg synes, at det arbejde, som generalsekretæren udfører i Kommissionen under hr. Ponzanos ledelse, er fremragende, og jeg vil anbefale hver eneste af de fire betænkninger, der er blevet forelagt i dag.
Når det er sagt, og fordi vi taler om bedre regulering, blev jeg lidt ilde til mode, da jeg begyndte at gennemgå betænkningerne. Jeg vil blot læse sproget op for Dem. Jeg mener, at der er et kommunikationsproblem her. Fru Frassoni udarbejdede en fremragende betænkning, men i punkt 18 står der: "bemærker, at SOLVIT-netværket har vist sin effektivitet på det indre marked som en supplerende udenretslig mekanisme, som har øget det frivillige samarbejde mellem medlemsstaterne, ...". Det er alt sammen rigtigt, men hvis De sidder og lytter til dette, forstår De ikke nødvendigvis, hvad det betyder. I betænkningen om bedre lovgivning af hr. Doorn står der i punkt 5: "mener, at Lamfalussy-proceduren er en nyttig mekanisme; mener, at det er vigtigt, at tilsynsmetoderne er ensartede; udtrykker tilfredshed med niveau-3-udvalgenes arbejde på dette område og tilslutter sig efterlysningen af passende redskaber; ...". Godt. I McCarthy-betænkningen, som efter min mening er den klareste, står der i punkt 6: "anmoder Kommissionen om at udføre såvel ex-ante- som ex-post-konsekvensanalyser af lovgivning for at bidrage til en vurdering af, om de politiske nøglemålsætninger er blevet opfyldt, ...", og Gargani-betænkningen er på nøjagtigt samme måde. Det, jeg forsøger at sige, er, at vi må have bedre regulering, bedre lovgivning, men det drejer sig om forenkling og om, at vi forstår, hvad vi træffer beslutning om, og at borgerne forstår, hvad vi forsøger at træffe beslutning om. Det er det, bedre lovgivning drejer sig om, og derfor må vi forbedre sproget. Jeg kan ikke forestille mig, hvordan det lød gennem den finske tolkning!"@da2
"Frau Präsidentin, ich kann mir nicht helfen, aber immer wenn ich den Namen Winkler da oben sehe, muss ich an Henry Winkler denken. Können Sie sich noch an Fonzie in „Happy Days“ erinnern? Es ist gut, einen österreichischen Minister als Fonzie zu haben, der grünes Licht für bessere Rechtsetzung gibt.
Wir beschäftigen uns während dieser Plenartagung mit drei Fragen, zwischen denen ein Zusammenhang besteht. Bei der ersten Frage mit der wir uns gestern befassten, ging es um Transparenz und Offenheit des Rates; die zweite betrifft diese Debatte über bessere Rechtsetzung, und bei der letzten, mit der wir uns heute Abend beschäftigen werden, wird es um die Bürgerschaft gehen. Ich unterstütze alle diese Initiativen; sie sind meines Erachtens ganz großartig; ich denke, dass der Generalsekretär in der Kommission unter Leitung von Herrn Ponzano ausgezeichnete Arbeit leistet, und ich möchte alle vier Berichte, die heute vorgelegt wurden, dem Haus empfehlen.
Trotzdem muss ich gerade in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass wir über bessere Rechtsetzung sprechen, feststellen, dass mir etwas mulmig wurde, als ich begann, die Berichte zu studieren. Ich lese Ihnen einfach mal daraus vor; achten Sie auf die Sprache. Ich glaube, wir haben hier ein Kommunikationsproblem. Frau Frassoni hat einen hervorragenden Bericht erarbeitet, aber Ziffer 18 „stellt fest, dass das SOLVIT-Netz im Binnenmarkt seinen Nutzen als ergänzender außergerichtlicher Mechanismus unter Beweis gestellt und die freiwillige Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten gefördert hat…“. Das stimmt alles, aber wenn Sie da oben sitzen und versuchen zuzuhören, dann werden Sie nicht notwendigerweise verstehen, was das bedeutet. Herr Doorn ist in seinem Bericht über bessere Rechtsetzung in Ziffer 5 „der Auffassung, dass das Lamfalussy-Verfahren ein nützlicher Mechanismus ist; erachtet die Konvergenz der Beraterpraktiken als von entscheidender Bedeutung; begrüßt in diesem Zusammenhang die Arbeit der Ausschüsse der Ebene 3 und unterstützt die Forderung nach angemessenen Instrumenten“ – prima. Im Bericht McCarthy– den ich für den verständlichsten halte – heißt es in Ziffer 6: „fordert, dass die Kommission sowohl
als auch
Folgenabschätzungen zu Rechtsvorschriften vornimmt, um Hilfestellung bei der Prüfung der Frage zu geben, ob politische Schlüsselziele verwirklicht worden sind“, und der Bericht Gargani enthält dieselben Formulierungen. Damit versuche ich zu sagen, dass wir bessere Rechtsetzung brauchen, aber das hat etwas mit Vereinfachung zu tun, damit, dass wir verstehen, worüber wir entscheiden, und die Bürger, worüber wir versuchen zu entscheiden. Genau darum geht es bei der besseren Rechtsetzung; deshalb müssen wir uns klarer ausdrücken. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, wie das ins Finnische gedolmetscht klang."@de9
"Κυρία Πρόεδρε, δεν το θέλω, αλλά όταν βλέπω εδώ το όνομα Winkler, αμέσως σκέφτομαι τον Henry Winkler: θυμάστε τον Fonzie στη σειρά Happy Days; Είναι ωραίο να έχουμε έναν αυστριακό υπουργό σαν τον Fonzie, να εγκρίνει τη βελτίωση του ρυθμιστικού πλαισίου !
Σε αυτήν την σύνοδο της Ολομέλειας έχουμε τρία αλληλένδετα θέματα. Το πρώτο, με το οποίο ασχοληθήκαμε χθες, αφορούσε τη διαφάνεια και τον ανοικτό χαρακτήρα του Συμβουλίου· το δεύτερο είναι η συζήτηση για τη βελτίωση της ρύθμισης και της νομοθεσίας, και το τελευταίο που έχουμε απόψε αφορά την ιθαγένεια. Υποστηρίζω όλες αυτές τις πρωτοβουλίες· πιστεύω ότι είναι πολύ καλές· πιστεύω ότι το έργο του Γενικού Γραμματέα στην Επιτροπή υπό τον κ. Ponzano είναι εξαιρετικό και θα ήθελα να συστήσω και τις τέσσερις εκθέσεις που συζητούμε σήμερα.
Τούτου λεχθέντος, και δεδομένου ότι συζητούμε για βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας, όταν άρχισα να διαβάζω τις εκθέσεις, αισθάνθηκα κάπως άβολα. Θα σας διαβάσω μόνο τη γλώσσα. Πιστεύω ότι εδώ υπάρχει πρόβλημα επικοινωνίας. Η κ. Frassoni συνέταξε μια πολύ καλή έκθεση, αλλά η παράγραφος 18, «επισημαίνει ότι το δίκτυο SOLVIT έχει αποδείξει την αποτελεσματικότητά του στο πλαίσιο της εσωτερικής αγοράς ως συμπληρωματικός μη δικαστικός μηχανισμός, ο οποίος έχει ενισχύσει την εθελοντική συνεργασία μεταξύ των κρατών μελών...». Είναι αλήθεια, αλλά, αν είστε εκεί πάνω και προσπαθείτε να ακούσετε, δεν θα καταλάβετε απαραίτητα τι σημαίνει. Ο κ. Doorn, σχετικά με τη βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας, στην παράγραφο 5, «θεωρεί τη διαδικασία Lamfalussy χρήσιμο μηχανισμό και τη σύγκλιση εποπτικών πρακτικών ιδιαίτερα σημαντική· επικροτεί το έργο των επιτροπών επιπέδου 3 στο πλαίσιο αυτό και στηρίζει την έκκληση για μια επαρκή δέσμη εργαλείων» – τέλεια. Στη συνέχεια, η έκθεση McCarthy –η οποία πιστεύω ότι είναι η σαφέστερη όλων– αναφέρει στην παράγραφο 6, «ζητεί από την Επιτροπή να διενεργεί τόσο εκ των προτέρων όσο και εκ των υστέρων αξιολογήσεις του αντικτύπου της νομοθεσίας, να συμμετέχει στην εκτίμηση του βαθμού επίτευξης βασικών στόχων πολιτικής...», και η έκθεση Gargani αναφέρει ακριβώς το ίδιο. Αυτό που προσπαθώ να πω είναι ότι χρειαζόμαστε καλύτερη ρύθμιση, καλύτερη νομοθεσία, αλλά έχει να κάνει με την απλοποίηση, με το να κατανοήσουμε τι αποφασίζουμε και με το να κατανοήσει ο κόσμος τι προσπαθούμε να αποφασίσουμε. Αυτό αφορά η βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας· επομένως, πρέπει να χρησιμοποιούμε καλύτερα τη γλώσσα. Δεν μπορώ να φανταστώ πώς ακούστηκαν αυτά στη φινλανδική διερμηνεία!"@el10
"Señora Presidenta, no puedo evitarlo, pero cuando veo el nombre de Winkler ahí arriba, pienso inmediatamente en Henry Winkler: ¿recuerdan al tipo que hizo de Fonzie en Días Felices? ¡Es bueno tener a un Ministro austriaco haciendo el papel de Fonzie, dando ánimos para que se legisle mejor!
Tenemos tres cuestiones relacionadas en esta sesión plenaria. La primera, de la que tratamos ayer, tenía que ver con la transparencia y la apertura del Consejo; la segunda es este debate sobre la mejora de la regulación y la legislación, y la última que tenemos esta tarde versa sobre la ciudadanía. Apoyo todas estas iniciativas; creo que son magníficas; creo que el trabajo hace que el Secretario General en la Comisión con el señor Ponzano es sumamente bueno y quisiera recomendar los cuatro informes que tenemos hoy sobre la mesa.
Dicho esto y teniendo en cuenta que hablamos de legislar mejor, cuando empecé a leer los informes me sentí un poco intranquilo. Les explicaré lo que quiero decir. Creo que hay aquí un problema de comunicación. La señora Frassoni ha elaborado un magnífico informe, pero el apartado 18 «señala que la red SOLVIT ha demostrado su efectividad en el mercado interior como mecanismo no judicial complementario que ha aumentado la cooperación voluntaria entre Estados miembros...». Es todo cierto, pero si usted permanece sentado tratando de escucharlo, no necesariamente va a entender lo que significa. El señor Doorn, sobre la mejora de la legislación, en el apartado 5, «considera que el procedimiento Lamfalussy es un mecanismo útil y que la convergencia de las prácticas de supervisión es fundamental; se congratula por la labor de los comités de nivel 3 al respecto y apoya la solicitud de disponer de los instrumentos adecuados»; estupendo. Después, el informe McCarthy –que creo que es el más claro– señala en el apartado 6 que «pide que la Comisión lleve a cabo evaluaciones del impacto tanto ex-ante como ex-post en materia de legislación para ayudar a identificar si se han alcanzado objetivos políticos clave», y el informe Gargani hace exactamente lo mismo. Lo que intento decir es que necesitamos una normativa mejor, legislar mejor, pero de manera que tenga que ver con la simplificación y que entendamos lo que decidimos y que la gente entienda lo que intentamos decidir. Esto es lo que significa mejorar la normativa; así que necesitamos mejorar el lenguaje. ¡No puedo imaginarme cómo ha sonado esto en la interpretación finesa!"@es20
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, en voi sille mitään, että nähdessäni tuolla ylhäällä nimen Winkler, ajattelen välittömästi Henry Winkleriä: muistattehan sen kaverin, joka esitti Fonzieta tv-sarjassa Onnen päivät? On hyvä että meillä on Fonzien kaltainen itävaltalaisministeri, joka pitää peukkua paremmalle säädöskäytännölle!
Tässä täysistunnossa käsittelemme kolmea toisiinsa liittyvää kysymystä. Niistä ensimmäistä käsittelimme eilen, ja se koski neuvoston toiminnan avoimuutta. Toinen niistä on tämänpäiväinen keskustelu paremmasta säädöskäytännöstä ja lainsäädännöstä ja viimeinen on tämäniltainen keskustelu kansalaisuudesta. Kannatan kaikkia näitä aloitteita, ne ovat minusta erinomaisia. Mielestäni pääsihteeri tekee komissiossa Ponzanon johdolla erinomaista työtä, ja suosittelen kaikkia neljää tänään käsiteltävää mietintöä.
Koska käsittelemme siis parempaa sääntelyä, tunsin hienoista levottomuutta alkaessani käydä läpi mietintöjä. Luen teille vain esimerkkejä niissä käytetystä kielestä. Mielestäni kyseessä on viestintäongelma. Jäsen Frassoni laati loistavan mietinnön, mutta 18 kohta kuuluu: "panee merkille, että SOLVIT-verkosto on osoittanut tehokkuutensa sisämarkkinoilla täydentävänä, muihin kuin oikeusteihin perustuvana mekanismina, joka on lisännyt jäsenvaltioiden välistä vapaaehtoista yhteistyötä...". Tämä pitää paikkansa, mutta jos yritätte istuessanne kuunnella tätä, ette välttämättä ymmärrä, mistä tässä on kyse. Jäsen Doorn toteaa 5 kohdassa paremmasta säädöskäytännöstä seuraavaa: "pitää Lamfalussyn prosessia käyttökelpoisena mekanismina; katsoo, että valvontakäytäntöjen yhdenmukaisuudella on ensisijainen merkitys; pitää myönteisenä kolmannen tason komiteoiden asiassa tekemää työtä ja tukee näiden pyyntöä asianmukaisista välineistä" – hienoa. Sitten McCarthyn mietinnössä, joka on mielestäni selkein, todetaan 6 kohdassa: "pyytää, että komissio toteuttaisi lainsäädännön ennakko- ja jälkiarvioinnin tutkiakseen, onko politiikan keskeiset tavoitteet saavutettu...", ja Garganin mietintö kulkee samaa rataa. Tarkoitan tällä, että tarvitsemme parempaa sääntelyä, parempaa säädöskäytäntöä, mutta se liittyy yksinkertaistamiseen ja siihen, että ymmärrämme, mistä olemme päättämässä. Kansalaistenkin on ymmärrettävä, mistä yritämme päättää. Tästä paremmassa sääntelyssä on kyse. Siksi meidän on käytettävä parempaa kieltä. En voi kuvitella, miltä tämä kuulosti suomeksi tulkattuna!"@fi7
"Madame la Présidente, en voyant le nom «Winkler», je ne peux m’empêcher de penser à Henry Winkler. Vous savez, celui qui jouait Fonzie dans la série
. N’est-il pas formidable d’avoir un ministre autrichien endosser le rôle de Fonzie, donnant son aval à une meilleure réglementation?
Trois questions sont intimement liées dans le cadre de cette plénière. La première, que nous avons abordée hier, traitait de la transparence et de l’ouverture du Conseil; la deuxième est ce débat sur l’amélioration de la réglementation et de la législation, et la troisième aura lieu ce soir à propos de la citoyenneté. Je soutiens toutes ces initiatives. Je pense qu’elles sont toutes positives. J’estime que le travail réalisé en Commission par le secrétaire général sous la houlette de M. Ponzano est tout à fait remarquable, et je tiens à recommander l’ensemble des quatre rapports qui nous ont été présentés aujourd’hui.
Ceci étant dit, et puisque nous évoquons le «mieux légiférer», j’ai ressenti un certain malaise à la lecture de ces rapports. Je vous en citerai quelques passages en insistant sur le style employé. Je pense que nous sommes face à un problème de communication. Mme Frassoni a rédigé un excellent rapport, mais le paragraphe 18 «relève que le réseau SOLVIT a démontré son efficacité sur le marché intérieur en tant que mécanisme non juridictionnel complémentaire, puisqu’il a permis d’accroître la coopération volontaire entre les États membres…». Tout cela est vrai, mais si vous êtes assis là haut et essayez d’écouter ce que je dis, vous n’êtes pas certains de comprendre ce que cela signifie. Concernant l’amélioration de la législation, M. Doorn, au paragraphe 5, «est d’avis que la procédure Lamfalussy est un mécanisme utile; estime que la convergence des pratiques en matière de surveillance revêt une importance cruciale; se félicite des travaux des comités de niveau 3 à cet égard et appuie l’appel en faveur d’outils adéquats» - excellent. Ensuite, le rapport McCarthy - qui est le plus clair à mes yeux - demande, dans son paragraphe 6, «que la Commission effectue des analyses d’impact ex ante et ex post de la législation, afin de contribuer à vérifier si les principaux objectifs politiques ont été atteints…», et le rapport Gargani indique exactement la même chose. Ce que j’essaie de dire, c’est que nous devons mieux réglementer et mieux légiférer, mais que cela passe par une simplification et par le fait que nous devons comprendre ce que nous décidons et que les citoyens doivent comprendre ce sur quoi nous essayons de nous prononcer. C’est là l’essence d’une meilleure réglementation. Nous devons donc utiliser un langage plus approprié. Je n’ose imaginer à quoi ressemblait mon intervention après l’interprétation en finnois!"@fr8
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@hu11
"Signora Presidente, quando vedo lassù il nome Winkler, non posso fare a meno di pensare immediatamente a Henry Winkler: vi ricordate l’attore che impersonava Fonzie in
? E’ bello avere un ministro austriaco come Fonzie, che dà la sua approvazione con i pollici alzati alla migliore regolamentazione!
Abbiamo tre questioni collegate in questa sessione plenaria. La prima, che abbiamo affrontato ieri, aveva a che fare con la trasparenza e l’apertura del Consiglio; la seconda è questa discussione sul miglioramento della regolamentazione e della legislazione, e l’ultima che ci attende questa sera è sulla cittadinanza. Io sostengo tutte queste iniziative, che ritengo eccellenti. Penso che in seno alla Commissione il Segretariato generale stia svolgendo un ottimo lavoro sotto la guida del signor Ponzano e vorrei raccomandare tutte e quattro le relazioni presentate oggi.
Detto questo e dato che stiamo parlando del miglioramento della regolamentazione, quando mi sono messo a esaminare le relazioni, ho provato un po’ di disagio. Voglio soltanto leggervi il tipo di linguaggio. A me sembra che qui ci sia un problema di comunicazione. L’onorevole Frassoni ha redatto un’ottima relazione, ma al paragrafo 18 si legge: “nota che la rete SOLVIT, che opera nel settore del mercato interno, ha dato prova della sua efficacia come meccanismo complementare a carattere extragiudiziale incrementando la cooperazione volontaria fra gli Stati membri...”. E’ tutto vero, ma se siete lì seduti e vi sforzate di ascoltare con attenzione, non necessariamente comprenderete cosa significa. L’onorevole Doorn, su “Legiferare meglio”, al paragrafo 5 scrive: “è del parere che la procedura Lamfalussy sia un meccanismo utile e che la convergenza delle prassi di vigilanza rivesta importanza cruciale; si compiace del lavoro svolto al riguardo dai “comitati di livello 3” e si associa alla richiesta di strumenti adeguati” – fantastico. Poi, la relazione McCarthy – che a mio giudizio è quella che risulta più chiara – afferma al paragrafo 6: “chiede alla Commissione di effettuare valutazioni d’impatto
e
sulla legislazione, in modo da contribuire a verificare se i principali obiettivi strategici siano stati realizzati...” e la relazione Gargani segue a ruota. Quello che sto cercando di dire è che abbiamo bisogno di migliorare la regolamentazione e di legiferare meglio, ma ciò ha a che fare con la semplificazione e richiede che capiamo l’oggetto delle nostre decisioni e che i cittadini comprendano cosa stiamo cercando di decidere. La migliore regolamentazione riguarda questo; quindi dobbiamo anche migliorare il linguaggio usato nel formulare i testi. Non posso immaginare come possono suonare quelle frasi nella traduzione finlandese!"@it12
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@lt14
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@lv13
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@mt15
"Mevrouw de Voorzitter, ik kan het niet helpen, maar wanneer ik de naam Winkler hier zie, moet ik onmiddellijk denken aan Henry Winkler: herinnert u zich Fonzie in Happy Days nog? Het is goed een Oostenrijkse minister als Fonzie te hebben, die het groene licht geeft voor betere regelgeving!
In deze plenaire vergadering bespreken we drie vraagstukken die met elkaar samenhangen. Gisteren hebben we het gehad over transparantie en de openheid van de Raad; nu discussiëren we over betere regelgeving en wetgeving en vanavond gaat het over burgerschap. Ik steun al deze initiatieven, die ik geweldig vind; mijns inziens verricht de secretaris-generaal heel goed werk in de Commissie onder leiding van de heer Ponzano, en ik wil alle vier verslagen die vandaag zijn gepresenteerd, bij ons aanbevelen.
Ondanks wat ik zojuist heb gezegd en gezien het feit dat we over betere regelgeving spreken, begon ik me enigszins ongemakkelijk te voelen toen ik de verslagen doornam. Ik zal u een paar illustraties geven van het taalgebruik. Ik denk dat we een communicatieprobleem hebben. Mevrouw Frassoni heeft een prima verslag opgesteld, maar in paragraaf 18 staat: “stelt vast dat het SOLVIT-netwerk op de interne markt een effectief niet-juridisch hulpinstrument is gebleken dat de vrijwillige samenwerking tussen de lidstaten heeft doen toenemen …”. Het klopt helemaal, maar als je dit aanhoort, is het niet vanzelfsprekend dat je begrijpt wat er bedoeld wordt. De heer Doorn, die het heeft over de wetgeving verbeteren, is in paragraaf 5 “… van mening dat de Lamfalussy-procedure haar nut heeft; vindt de convergentie van toezichtprocedures van cruciaal belang; verwelkomt in dit opzicht de bijdragen van de comités van niveau 3 en sluit zich aan bij hun oproep tot een adequaat instrumentarium”. Geweldig. Dan staat in paragraaf 6 van het verslag-McCarthy, dat volgens mij het duidelijkst is: “verzoekt de Commissie om zowel op voorhand als achteraf effectbeoordelingen van de wetgeving uit te voeren, zodat kan worden nagegaan of de belangrijkste beleidsdoelstellingen zijn bereikt …”. In het verslag-Gargani staat precies hetzelfde. Wat ik probeer duidelijk te maken, is dat we betere regelgeving en betere wetgeving nodig hebben. Daarbij is vereenvoudiging belangrijk en het gaat erom dat we begrijpen waarover we besluiten nemen en dat de burgers dat ook begrijpen. Daar draait het bij betere regelgeving om en daarom moeten we ons taalgebruik verbeteren. Ik heb geen idee hoe dit alles in de Finse vertolking klinkt!"@nl3
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@pl16
"Senhora Presidente, quando vejo ali o nome Winkler, não posso deixar de pensar imediatamente em Henry Winkler: lembram-se do tipo que fazia de Fonzie em “Dias Felizes”? É bom ter um ministro austríaco como o Fonzie, a dar tudo por uma melhor legislação!
Temos três questões interligadas nesta sessão plenária. A primeira, que abordámos ontem, prendia-se com a transparência e a abertura do Conselho; a segunda prende-se com o debate sobre uma melhor legislação e regulamentação, e a última, que está na mesa esta noite, tem a ver com cidadania. Apoio todas as iniciativas; considero-as notáveis; entendo que o trabalho que o Secretário-Geral está a fazer na Comissão sob a direcção de Paolo Ponzano é de grande qualidade, pelo que gostaria de recomendar os quatro relatórios que estão hoje em discussão.
Posto isto, e dado que estamos a falar de melhor regulamentação, devo dizer que quando comecei a ler os relatórios, fiquei um tanto desconfortável. Só vos vou falar da linguagem. Penso que há aqui um problema de comunicação. A senhora deputada Frassoni elaborou um excelente relatório, mas o nº 18 diz o seguinte: “ Regista que a rede SOLVIT provou a sua eficácia no mercado interno como mecanismo complementar extrajudicial que aumentou a cooperação voluntária entre Estados-Membros...”. É tudo verdade, mas se pararem um bocado e tentarem ouvir, não vão de certeza compreender o que significa. O senhor deputado Doorn, do relatório sobre “Legislar Melhor 2004”, no nº 5 diz: “reconhece a utilidade do mecanismo contido no processo Lamfalussy; considera crucial a convergência das práticas de supervisão; enaltece o trabalho das comissões de nível 3 neste contexto e apoia o apelo no sentido de um conjunto de ferramentas adequado;” – óptimo. Depois, o relatório McCarthy – que penso ser o mais claro – afirma no nº 6: “solicita à Comissão que leve a cabo avaliações de impacto
sobre a legislação, que contribua para identificar se foram alcançados os objectivos políticos fulcrais ...’, e o relatório Gargani contém exactamente o mesmo. O que estou a tentar dizer é que precisamos de regulamentar melhor, legislar melhor, mas há que o fazer simplificando, compreendendo o que estamos a decidir, e de modo a que as pessoas entendam o que estamos a tentar decidir. É isso que é “Legislar Melhor”; precisamos pois de usar uma linguagem melhor. Não consigo imaginar como é que isto soará na interpretação finlandesa!"@pt17
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@sk18
"Madam President, I cannot help it, but when I see the name Winkler up there, I immediately think about Henry Winkler: remember the guy who was Fonzie in Happy Days? It is good to have an Austrian Minister as Fonzie, giving the thumbs up to better regulation!
We have three linked issues in this plenary session. The first, which we dealt with yesterday, was to do with transparency and the openness of the Council; the second is this debate on better regulation and legislation, and the last one we have this evening is on citizenship. I support all those initiatives; I think they are great; I think the work that the Secretary-General is doing in the Commission under Mr Ponzano is extremely good and I would like to recommend all four reports that have been put on the table today.
Having said that and given that we are talking about better regulation, when I started going through the reports, I got a bit uneasy. I will just read you the language. I think there is a communication problem here. Mrs Frassoni drew up a great report, but paragraph 18, ‘Notes that the SOLVIT network has proved its effectiveness in the internal market as a complementary non-judicial mechanism which has increased voluntary cooperation among Member States ...’. It is all true, but if you are sitting up there trying to listen to this, you are not necessarily going to understand what it means. Mr Doorn, on better lawmaking, at paragraph 5, ‘is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox;’ – great. Then, the McCarthy report – which I think is the clearest one – states in paragraph 6, ‘requests that the Commission carry out both
and
impact assessments on legislation to assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met ...’, and the Gargani report has exactly the same. What I am trying to say is that we need better regulation, better lawmaking, but it is to do with simplification and us understanding what we are deciding on and people understanding what we are trying to decide on. That is what better regulation is all about; therefore, we need to use better language. I cannot imagine how that sounded through the Finnish interpretation!"@sl19
"Fru talman! Jag kan inte rå för det, men när jag ser namnet Winkler där uppe, tänker jag omedelbart på Henry Winkler: kommer ni ihåg killen som spelade Fonzie i ”Gänget och jag”? Det känns bra att ha en österrikisk minister som Fonzie, som ger tummen upp för bättre lagstiftning.
Vi behandlar tre sammankopplade ärenden under detta plenarsammanträde. Det första, som vi behandlade i går, gällde öppenhet och insyn inom rådet, det andra ärendet är denna debatt om bättre regelverk och lagstiftning, och det sista, om medborgarskap, behandlar vi i kväll. Jag stöder alla dessa initiativ; jag menar att de är utmärkta. Jag anser att det arbete som generalsekreteraren utför i kommissionen under Paolo Ponzano är utomordentligt bra, och jag skulle vilja rekommendera alla de fyra betänkanden som har lagts fram i dag.
Med bakgrund av detta, och med tanke på att vi talar om bättre lagstiftning, blev jag lite illa till mods när jag började gå igenom betänkandena. Jag skulle vilja läsa upp något av det språk som används för er. Jag tror att vi har ett kommunikationsproblem här. Monica Frassoni utarbetade ett utmärkt betänkande, men punkt 18, ”Europaparlamentet konstaterar att Solvit-nätverket har visat sig effektivt på den inre marknaden som en kompletterande icke-judiciell mekanism som har ökat det frivilliga samarbetet mellan medlemsstaterna ...”. Allt detta är sant, men om ni sitter där uppe och försöker lyssna på detta är det inte helt säkert att ni kommer att förstå vad det betyder. Bert Doorn skriver i punkt 5 om lagstiftning: ”Europaparlamentet anser att Lamfalussyförfarandet är värdefullt och att det är mycket viktigt att övervakningsmetoderna närmar sig varandra. Parlamentet välkomnar i det här sammanhanget arbetet i nivå 3-kommittéerna och kravet på lämpliga verktyg” – underbart. Därefter i McCarthybetänkandet – som jag tror var det tydligaste av dem – hävdas det i punkt 6: ”Europaparlamentet uppmanar kommissionen att utföra konsekvensanalyser av lagstiftning både på förhand och i efterhand för att hjälpa till att fastställa om centrala politiska mål har uppfyllts och för att främja översynen av lagstiftningen ...”, och i Garganibetänkandet är det exakt likadant. Det jag försöker säga är att vi behöver ett bättre regelverk, bättre lagstiftning, men det handlar om förenkling och att vi ska begripa vad vi beslutar om, och att människor ska begripa vad vi försöker besluta om. Det är vad ett bättre regelverk handlar om, och därför behöver vi använda ett bättre språk. Jag kan inte föreställa mig hur detta lät i den finska tolkningen!"@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Laughter and applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE ). –"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"ex-ante"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"ex-ante e ex-post"17
"ex-post"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples