Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.6.3-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, with your permission, I should like first to make a comment on Parliament’s order of business. On the basis of Parliament’s order of business, on which this and other reports are entered for this morning, I promised to discuss the European economy with voters in my constituency in one hour’s time. I should therefore like to apologise in advance for being unable to stay until the end of this debate.
I wish to make a few comments on the Wise Men’s proposal, but I shall start by thanking Baron Lamfalussy for his highly intelligent and far-reaching report on this subject and then take a position on the first part of this report, i.e. on the question of a fast-track procedure. The real issue here is that we want to fast track the passage and application of this important legislative package. And we have here an initial opportunity where the European Parliament has already stated that it is prepared, if at all possible and if the Council meets us half way here, to complete the legislative procedures at first reading. So if we can agree at first reading, then the European Parliament will be prepared to refrain from tabling any further proposed amendments at second reading. That goes without saying.
I think it would be a good idea if we were to select two very important pilot projects here, such as the regulations on pension funds, which are crucial, and a simpler issue such as the regulations on prospectuses in the European Union, and use these projects to see exactly what happens here if we shift legislation to a secondary level.
I should like to say a word on the question of whether democracy costs time. Time and again we hear that Parliament’s being allowed a possible three readings to deal with a question extends the legislative procedure unnecessarily. I cannot agree with that. Think back to the old days of unanimity, when the legislative procedure in the European Union took up to 20 years. There are quite specific examples of this, such as the product liability directive. Experience has shown that we are able to complete important legislative procedures in two years with the new codecision procedure. I think this shows that it is possible to have a democratic procedure which does not take an overly long time.
Now to the second question, i.e. the implementation of legislation in the European Union. We agree with the Wise Men’s proposal on most points, unlike the Council, which has reservations. However, as the European Parliament, we unanimously demand a callback right in cases in which we feel that errors have been made in implementing the legislation. This too is a unanimous call and will shortly be adopted in the resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples