Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.5.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"If I may put Mr Titford’s mind at rest, the Dutch Government is not following the United Kingdom’s example; it is in fact dealing with another problem, one with which we are also concerning ourselves today. On the one hand, it is very irritating that this House is virtually turning into a sort of House of Commons, in that we are now giving our attention solely to problems that are in fact not even specific to the UK, but are specifically English. That, of course, becomes very tiresome, especially for those participants in the debate who do not originate from that country. There is also the second problematic aspect, namely the legal cases referred to earlier: the Jaeger case and others. This is where I really do think that the Commission has not shown sufficient leadership. It ought to have been apparent that the combination of the interpretation of these legal acts and the existence of the opt-out would create difficulties and to the objectives of the directive being undermined. It waited a long time and gave what were in fact wholly inadequate answers as to what the solution might be. Not to mention such other things as, for example, the people who then think they too can use this for their own purposes by, contrary to what the directive intended, creating more difficulties. That can happen at any time and it is at that point that the whole thing starts to unravel.
This is where I differ from many others in my belief that we have to be quick. The fact is that we have to give priority to dealing with the points that are relevant to hospitals, the fire service and a few more of the sort of things that are relevant not only to the United Kingdom; then we will be able to talk about the opt-out. That is, at the moment, still inadequately expressed in our report and it is certainly inadequately expressed in what the Commission is saying. It is still doing no more than creating options, which seems to indicate that we have a very long process ahead of us, but, at the time, all the Member States resolved to avail themselves of the opt-out, so you never know what is going to happen.
In conclusion, I myself think an opt-out is always a sign of failure, of your inability to completely sort matters out, which is also the underlying problem here. I still think that we have to be looking for alternatives to the opt-out, but you cannot say that you cannot get rid of it unless you offer alternatives. If you have no alternative, you cannot say that the opt-out is wrong. You have to say, ‘the opt-out is wrong, but here are the alternatives to it’. That is what we actually have to work towards with this report. We will certainly have to aspire to it in the course of further consultation. First, though, we have to close the loophole in the directive as quickly as possible, or in the place where at least the Member States think it is. Then we will, in any case, have all the Member States behind us – with the exception of the United Kingdom, but including, I am sure, the Member States in Eastern Europe. We can then take a look at the last part of the second opt-out."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples