Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-14-Speech-1-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080114.18.1-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, as we are new to this procedure – and, having looked around, everybody else present has spoken – does that mean I can have five minutes myself? I assume I can have at least two, which was the time taken off our side to allow the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure. It is a matter we need to clarify.
I stand to support colleagues on this important regulation, which is on its second trip through the committees and these houses, because of a Court of Justice ruling 12 months ago that it should have been a dual legal base originally.
The main point I want to speak on under the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure is my general concern about legal bases and the trouble we have been running into here, not just with this piece of legislation but also with others. A lot of time is spent, at committee level as well as plenary, in debating amendments in relation to single versus dual legal bases and different views.
I think it is time that this Parliament took stock of exactly the procedures we arrive at – different legal bases – because, often, dual legal bases are proposed to us or are proposed at Council coming back to us before a common position is reached for what I would call sloppy legislating reasons, because the larger the EU gets – 27 Member States now and growing, and I welcome that – the harder it is to be tidy in our legislation. We really must look at what we are doing in this area. So it is interesting that the reverse is true here. In fact, the Court of Justice has said that we need a dual legal base in this particular area rather than the single legal base, which normally makes life much easier – if we can keep to a single legal base – because very often dual legal bases have been lawyers’ charters.
I wonder whether the Commissioner could indicate what exactly the challenge to the Court of Justice was in relation to the single legal base, who took it, and if he could give us more information on why the Court of Justice itself determined, if you like, on a dual legal base. They have given us time to go through the procedure again and have maintained the effects of the regulation until we readopt it, as it were, and I very much welcome the fact that it looks like we are going to have a first reading agreement because of all the cooperation all round. The Commissioner’s views on that and on the whole saga of the legal base that has us here a second time would be very welcome."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples