Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.4.2-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking today on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to submit my opinion on the issue of comitology. In so doing – and this was of course mentioned at the end of the previous intervention – I am focusing in particular on the Lamfalussy process and the Lamfalussy procedures for legislation creating the internal market in financial services.
Like the Lamfalussy Group, our aim is to produce legislation in this sector that is close to the market and practicable; that is what all of us want and are working for. However, we must of course take a close look at what form the procedures may take in the future. Precisely in our role as Parliament we need to ask ourselves whether the future procedures also have sufficient democratic legitimacy, because of course we are also getting increasing numbers of so-called soft laws, that is legislation at international level. I only need to mention Basel II or the International Accounting Standards, which will soon become law in Europe once the necessary steps have been taken by the European Commission and after adoption in the Council and Parliament. If in the future all of this were to happen in a comitology procedure, with a framework directive only giving general instructions, we would have a basic problem of legitimacy, and Parliament reserves the right to have a say on these very important issues in the future. For this reason I can only support the rapporteur, Mr Corbett.
It is vital for us in the European Parliament to retain our influence at European level. This does not mean that we also wish to discuss the technical details in the plenary or in committee. That is not our point. But if we feel that provisions are heading in the wrong direction it is vital that we be able to say so, and for this to happen it is essential that the constitution being drafted by the Convention give us a right to call back in the future, which means that if we are not happy with something we can recall it, change its focus and correct it. That is why it is essential for the Commission and the Convention to support us here so that we can have the relevant provisions added."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples