Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-090"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:1. Taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, 2. Capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050926.14.1-090"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-26-Speech-1-0912
lpv:speaker	lp:José Manuel García-margallo Y Marfil2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 substitute; INTA (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 vice-chair; ECON (2004-09-01--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, welcome to our Chamber. My role in this debate consists exclusively of explaining what has happened in this Parliament during comitology and expressing my full support for the position of the rapporteur, my colleague Mr Radwan. The problems in relation to comitology began some years ago now, when the Commission presented Parliament with the financial services action plan, which proposed the rapid implementation of forty-something measures in the field of financial services. We were told at that point that the ordinary legislative procedure was too slow to keep up to date with the speed of the financial markets. I spoke here to say that, in the vast majority of cases, Parliament was not responsible for this delay, but rather the Council. The next step was what we know as the Lamfalussy report, after the person in charge of drawing it up, who, with a view to providing a solution, to adapting the speed of the procedure to the speed of the markets, proposed splitting the legislation into two levels. First level: general principles, basic guidelines. Second level: concrete legal rules. Level one, codecision. Level two, complete exclusion of Parliament. We were asked to surrender the prerogatives that should be the privileges, the basic rules, of any European Parliament. It is quite understandable that the European Parliament should express its suspicion. We simply wanted to be in the same position as the Council. In the event that boundaries were overstepped, in the event that the attorney did not keep to the limits of their mandate, we wanted a call-back. It was not possible at that time, because the Treaties did not allow it, and we were waiting for the Constitution. We have reached a transitional situation — and I would stress transitional — and I would therefore call for the sunset clause that Mr Radwan has mentioned. Until then it will be necessary to reach an agreement that harmonises the two objectives: speed in the legislative procedure and respect for Parliament’s powers, powers which, as is the case for any Parliament, have been hard won over time. I would like finally to explain our suspicion by recalling a Spanish politician renowned for his skill and ability in fiddling the rules, who said, ‘you make the law, but leave it to me to make the regulation’. That is the danger we are worried about."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph