Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.3.2-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this morning’s debate creates great confusion, because the positions we are hearing are very different. Some people tell us that Mrs Fourtou has achieved a wonderful compromise and others tell us that the big political groups have behaved like a kind of steamroller. We have heard speeches from Members of the different political groups, including the big ones, expressing very different opinions.
Mrs Fourtou has tried to speed up the legislative process with what we could call ‘
’, but I believe we should assure Mr Imbeni that the procedure remains in place. The problem is that the current procedure for approving legislation in the European Union, before the adoption of the European Constitution, is a truly elaborate, complicated and difficult procedure. The recently signed Interinstitutional Agreement intends to eliminate these difficulties, but we know that that is going to be very difficult to achieve in practice. And this is because if there is no clear identification of a legislative body – which I believe must be as unified as possible – we are condemned to continuing to adopt this type of legislation in which there are great contradictions.
Mr Berenguer Fuster said that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market reflected the views of the Members of Parliament. I disagree with that, because the majority of reports approved – including by a great majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs – are usually then rectified in plenary. In other words, as a result of its composition, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does not currently reflect the will of the whole House. Mrs Fourtou has tried to achieve an agreement which does not reflect the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I do not know if she will achieve that agreement, because we do not yet know what the result of the vote will be.
We are talking about a report with many amendments, with enormous amendments, and which, theoretically, should not affect substantive law. We are talking about a right relating to the application or implementation of the substantive content. Mr Berenguer may be right about the confusion between civil, administrative and criminal enforcement procedures, but it appears that the attention has been to eliminate criminal enforcement or, at least, the possibility of criminal proceedings, and this is due to the European Union's lack of competences in the criminal field.
On the other hand, the scope of the directive has been extended – or it is intended to do so – so that it also includes the field of patents, which is a field in a degree of turmoil.
My impression, Mr President, is that this first reading is going to produce a text typical of these Community institutions: a kind of camel – that is, a horse designed by a committee – and that it will probably only be the beginning, but I believe it is preferable for us to adopt this proposal for a directive as quickly as possible, at least so that we may have a departure point to work from, firstly in the second reading and then, no doubt, when further legislative proposals are needed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"a proto-conciliation procedure"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples