Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.8.2-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, unfortunately, I only have an unreasonably short amount of time to present my opinion of the legal basis, and that of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. This is not about having some kind of hidebound discussion for legal experts, an exercise in legal hair splitting as it were, but concerns an eminently political issue, namely that of competences and the demarcation thereof.
Even a court of law does not simply apply law on its own in such cases. It creates and drafts law, and further develops it. As co-legislators, we would do well to take part in this drafting process. And we are doing just that in as much as we are performing this demarcation, this separating off, of our own accord.
Turning briefly to the points I would like to make: Article 152 of the Treaty expressly rules out approximation of laws in matters pertaining to health. This may be regrettable – I also have every sympathy as to why this should be so – but that is how matters stand. Article 95, the general clause on the internal market, as it were, serves as a legal basis as far as the strengthening of the internal market is concerned. And we should not complain if health issues are acknowledged as a matter of priority in this context.
Demarcation and assessment cannot be undertaken on the basis of headings, nor can it be done by drafting a directive of the kind that the Commission puts forward in a markedly mechanical and often completely disjointed manner. It cannot be accomplished in the way that it used to be either, particularly as the principle of subsidiarity has now been enshrined in the Treaties. It can only be done on the basis of the factual content of a proposal, and when it comes to amendments, on the basis of the factual content of these amendments. However, the decisive factor will not be whether it has any implications for the internal market. This will always be the case, which is why any attempt at demarcation would actually be pointless. All that ever matters is whether the main emphasis and aim of a directive serve to promote the internal market, to dismantle barriers to trade and to promote the free movement of goods, or whether the main emphasis is different. Indeed no one has so much as mentioned yet whether that is the main emphasis of this proposal.
Therefore on a final note, I urge you to reject the committee’s proposal, the directive in its present form – and I stress, in its present form, not in any form – on account of its lacking a legal basis and transgressing the principle of subsidiarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples