Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.8.1-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, with 1075 formal notices, 470 reasoned opinions, 178 referrals to the Court of Justice – twice as many as in 1998 – the 1999 balance sheet for the application of Community Law is proof enough of serious discontent.
To tell the truth of the matter, Europe legislates too much and too badly. It even manages to legislate in areas where it has no competence. It did this in 1979 with the ‘conservation of wild birds’ directive and more recently, without any legal foundation, on the status and financing of European political parties.
If Member States drag their feet in transposing Community law into national law, if disputes have multiplied in number, it is because European regulation is often restrictive, finicky, unsuited to local realities and far removed from the worries of our fellow citizens, that is, when it is not directly opposed to their will and our republican principles. Additionally, last year the French government proclaimed its disagreement with the ‘genome’ directive. Mrs Guigou, the Minister of Justice, felt that this directive, was "incompatible with French bioethical laws, with the code for industrial property and also the civil code that prohibits the marketing of the human body".
Can we, in the name of Europe and its qualified majority, impose legislation upon a people who reject it? This is a fundamental problem. Should we standardise everything and sacrifice our differences, our true European diversity? We do not think so. In addition, in a democracy, it is not the business of the Court of Justice to create legislation through case law. It is up to elected representatives. At the present time, MEPs, uniquely elected by universal suffrage, have no true right of legislative initiative, a monopoly that is jealously guarded by the Commission.
It is not by using the threat of fines and penalties in the unrelenting attempt to apply poor texts, as Article 15 so clearly wants, that Europe will solve problems. Stubbornness has its limits and when a text is poor, there should be the clear-mindedness and the courage to change it, as we are proposing to do with Article 12.
It would therefore be a good idea to legislate less in order to legislate better, to respect national will and democracy by applying the principle of subsidiarity to the maximum. For example, regulation on the transport of hydrocarbons is becoming an urgent matter, but once again it has been postponed indefinitely for purely mercenary reasons.
Contrary to that stated in item M of the preamble, we do not think that strict application of Community law will lead towards the emergence of an unwanted European nationality. We are too worried about the respect of identities, of democracy and the right to difference."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples