Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-057"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Tobacco products2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001211.3.1-057"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-11-Speech-1-0582
lpv:speaker	lp:Ana Palacio Vallelersundi2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 president; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2002-07-09)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, given that some of us have been accused of having shady intentions for arguing that there is a lack of, or rather doubt over, a legal basis for certain articles of the directive which we are debating today, I would like to talk about interinstitutional balance. This interinstitutional balance is a source of legitimacy for European integration. I would also like to talk about the obligation inherent in the Treaties. According to the Treaty, the Commission has had the obligation, for more than two months, to analyse the judgment and to draw the relevant conclusions from it. The Commissioner today, for the first time, in his very brief intervention, has used the words “no doubt” at least three times and the words “clear” or “clearly” at least three times. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in law, when one feels the need to say that something is clear, and that there is no doubt about it, it is because there is doubt and it is not clear. In this case there is doubt and it is not clear. Mr President, how can it be said that a justification in Amendment No 2 respects what the Court of Justice has said, when according to that justification, in order to explain the danger to the internal market, several Member States have indicated that, if certain measures are not adopted, they would seek to legislate? Which Member States? Which measures? That is what we expected from the Commission, that they should tell us, that they should explain this to us. Let us take some other examples, Amendments Nos 1, 4 and 18. To add the legal basis of Article 133 is legally skilful, but has the Commission really considered Article 131 which is the mother article of external trade policy, and which says that that policy is intended “to increase the competitiveness of our companies”? How does that square with the justification in Amendment No 18, where it says that an exemption period is granted because that could seriously harm our industry? How does that square with that same justification, which says that negotiations must be held within the World Trade Organisation? Mr President, these doubts, these justifiable doubts, which have nothing to do with any shady or mysterious friendship with some company or other, are the reason for the vote of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and I remember that it was 18 votes to 9. Although I was not present, my vote, of course, supported the Committee."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph