Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank my colleagues. It has been a very interesting debate. I also thank Commissioner Dimas.
As I came here to speak tonight, the Committee on Legal Affairs was only beginning to consider – as is its duty – the proposed change in the legal base in the common position. I should like to put on record that it was considered, but without much debate at all, and the Members of the Legal Affairs Committee were never even advised that Parliament's legal opinion to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was that the dual legal base would not withstand a challenge before the ECJ.
They agreed that the dual legal base, as proposed in the common position, should remain. But our clear legal advice is that this will not withstand a challenge before the European Court. On that basis and according to what everyone else has said, I appeal to colleagues for support for the legal base of Article 175 tomorrow, with the proper Commission policing – please – of the internal market, as required of them under Article 176. That is most important.
Under the better regulation announcement by President Barroso some weeks ago, the F-gases were mentioned in terms of impact assessment and analysis. The four-month time frame that we have in Parliament at second reading did not allow a proper teasing-out of exactly what was in the Commission's mind. It is unacceptable to ask us to pass this legislation – but we have no choice, because of the time frame – without a proper and full impact analysis, as many colleagues have requested, particularly in relation to bans. I do not, generally speaking, support the extra bans, particularly on SF6 and others. I am generally in favour of Article 175 but against extra bans. It is not acceptable at this point for that industry to bear that particular burden.
The political reality is that if we do not get a qualified majority for legal base Article 175 tomorrow – and we need a qualified majority for a second reading – the common position will remain: the dual legal base. That will be challenged before the European Court of Justice, as we have been told, and we know the countries that are going to do it. All legal advice tells us that they will find in favour of Article 175 as the legal base. So for those who do not want that to happen, ironically, they should support Article 175 tomorrow so that we go into conciliation and politically we decide the shape, which will not be purely Article 175 because there will have to be compromises.
We should decide in conciliation and not let the ECJ decide, even though I would be very optimistic that my personal opinion will come out of the ECJ. We are politicians; we want to decide it ourselves. Thank you for your support."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples