Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-15-Speech-3-649"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101215.32.3-649"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-12-15-Speech-3-6502
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-02-28)3 chair; JURI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Iraq (2009-09-16--2012-10-22)3 chair; Conference of Committee Chairs (2009-09-08--2012-01-18)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-21--2014-02-28)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-02-28)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a series of explanations are needed, including here in plenary, with regard to misleading debates which have taken place in the groups, in the Conference of Committee Chairs and in some cases in the committees. First of all, this regulation is not about deciding what delegated acts are under the terms of Article 290 and what implementing acts are under the terms of Article 291. This regulation will definitely not come to a decision on this. This is decided in the basic act. In other words, the law itself will decide on the authority under the terms of Article 290 or Article 291, if provision is made for this. The regulation only covers the procedure in the case of Article 291. My second point concerns the criticism of Article 10. This article also relates only to the procedure and nothing else. In this context, the Commission has once again clarified that it does, of course, intend to review all the existing acts from the pre-Lisbon period as part of the alignment and to make new proposals to both legislative bodies: Parliament and the Council. This has been reinforced once again in comparison with the previous Interinstitutional Agreement. The only thing which is really new is the procedure for external trade. I admit that the compromise which the Belgian Presidency has come up with is rather bureaucratic. There is no doubt about that. However, given the two blocking minorities in the Council, this was the only possible solution. For me, this question is all about weighing up the benefits. We also need to weigh up, as the rapporteur has said, what Parliament has negotiated. We have a procedure for reviewing implementing acts which is not provided for in the treaty. That is a very significant step forward, in particular with regard to the involvement of Parliament, which goes beyond the terms of the treaty. Therefore, when the benefits are weighed up, it is clear that this deserves our support. This is why I am in favour of the report as it is, without amendments. We will not be able to achieve any more in the first reading than we could achieve in a later conciliation process after an unspecified period."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph