Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.4.2-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, allow me to reply to some of the points that have been raised. Firstly the question as to whether this is an interim solution. In my view, the Commission proposal with our amendments can be the basis for a solution to the comitology problem that is compatible both with the current treaty and with what is likely to come out of the European Convention.
Of course, the Convention must do its work and get rid of the apparent contradictions between Articles 202 and 251 of the Treaty, and perhaps put some of the principles governing the delegation of implementing powers into the Treaty and into the constitution itself, but in my view what we are doing here could be entirely convergent with the work going on in the Convention.
Secondly, despite the great convergence we have achieved in general, I would like to mention the issue of the two points which, according to Mr Bourlanges, the PPE-DE Group intends to vote against.
I must say I disagree with the PPE-DE Group on this and I would point out that the position that I am defending is based on what was adopted by Parliament in Mr Bourlanges' own report. So I am consistent with what is in Parliament's position up to now, and, indeed, in our own Rules of Procedure, where we have called upon the President of Parliament to ask the Commission to withdraw or modify any implementing measure that Parliament objects to, or to bring forward a legislative proposal. So I am on the solid ground of what Parliament has consistently argued for over time in this and I would hope that the PPE-DE Group would rethink its position before we vote in half an hour's time.
Also, on the question of the provisional adoption of a text pending the legislative procedure, this is important in certain circumstances in order to avoid a legal vacuum. The measure applies provisionally while Parliament and the Council go through a legislative procedure to review it, amend it or repeal it, depending on what we decide to do. But it can also be important to have a stopgap solution without a legal vacuum pending that legislative procedure.
In other words, I am asking for a menu of options. If Parliament or Council objects to an implementing measure that the Commission has put forward, the Commission can either withdraw it – I think it has that right implicitly under the Treaty anyway but let us make that explicit – or it can amend it to take account of our objections, or it can put forward a legislative proposal. If it does the latter it can apply the measure provisionally, if this is necessary to avoid a legal vacuum, or not if that is not necessary. That range of opportunities is, I think, appropriate. We should maintain the full list and I hope the PPE-DE Group will rethink its position and vote accordingly."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples