Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-114"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010117.4.3-114"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-17-Speech-3-1152
lpv:speaker	lp:Mauro Nobilia2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3,3 member; EMPL (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3,3 treasurer; UEN (2000-09-21--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-09-09--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3,3 unknown; Alleanza nazionale (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	". There is clearly no doubt that it would be highly appropriate to create a Rapid Reaction Facility and, moreover, the three Community institutions have already expressed positive views. However, over and above our common goal, we feel that certain elements of the Council's proposal deserve careful consideration. The first is essentially theoretical: the objectives of the mechanism in question do not appear to be very clear, apart from the tasks of supranational policing. The rapporteur goes so far as to propose explicitly the establishment of a European Police Force. And if this were the case we could consider the proposal, but it would have to have a different legal basis and, most importantly, a different Community institutional system from that defined by the recent Intergovernmental Summit at Nice. In actual fact, in our opinion, the ultimate purpose of the Rapid Reaction Mechanism is to make Community policies and programmes effective more quickly and to maintain that effectiveness more consistently. Moreover, the original impression came from the description of the conditions for triggering the Facility, which, being very general still does not give a practical idea of them, when it would have been enough, without prejudice to the normal intervention conditions laid down by Community regulations, to highlight those conditions which, on the basis of their urgency, trigger the Reaction Mechanism. Then, it appears strange that the governments of the States within which the Mechanism may be triggered are not among the parties notified of the triggering of the Mechanism. Moreover, it seems odd that they are not notified, since they have been targeted by policies and programmes which, in the case in point, need to be safeguarded. Finally, objections could be raised to the increase in the volume of information sent to the European Parliament, even through the consultation procedure alone, but, since we hope that the list of topics subject to codecision will be extended, we feel that, in specific cases of geographical or political importance, the Commission must not hold back from informing Parliament. In the light of these considerations, we support the changes proposed by the rapporteur and we have therefore voted for the motion."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph