Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-257"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.12.2-257"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, a few comments on the Parallel Agreement. The assumption that we need to agree on common standards in the face of a globalised economy and globalised environmental protection requirements is correct. However, and this is perhaps a requirement of this agreement, we need to start from a common political philosophy rather than taking an approach whereby management experts agree on standards beyond politics.
We held a symposium here two weeks ago with American members of Congress at which precisely this question was discussed, namely the development of a common philosophy for harmonising technical standards based on economic and ecological requirements. As with music, harmony here does not necessarily mean that everyone is singing exactly the same note, but that the overall effect is harmonious. And, in this respect, harmony also means taking account of the different requirements in the USA and in Europe. And this has to happen at the political and not just the technical level.
The second requirement is this: we are concluding an agreement which is not in fact necessary because, in theory, everything can be regulated under the 1958 agreement. An additional agreement is being concluded here merely to accommodate specific interests on the other side of the Atlantic, one which may lead, inter alia, to delays in the process of establishing common standards, for example, because unanimity is required here. And that begs the question of whether we are paying too much attention to the requirements of a specific country
The third point concerns us very closely. In discussions on accession to the 1958 agreement, we had intense discussions in the Kittelmann report on the extent to which Parliament’s joint political rights, to be specific, its right of codecision, was called into question. This is, of course, exacerbated by this Parallel Agreement, because the mechanism is taken yet another step away from us, the European Parliament.
Commissioner, your predecessor, Mr Bangemann, assured us at the time that we would be regularly informed about discussions in relation to the 1958 agreement and included in decisions. So far this process has yet to get off the ground. I invite you to state clearly how Parliament can be involved in the decision-making process, what can be done to ensure that we are involved in time, what can be done to ensure that there is continuity in reporting, for example by having standing rapporteurs or by having small specialist groups, and how the Commission and Parliament can jointly set themselves the objective of monitoring the 1958 agreement. In other words, how will the Commission ensure that Parliament’s right of codecision will not be circumvented by this agreement?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples