Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-14-Speech-1-085-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110214.14.1-085-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the explanatory statement from the rapporteur is quite correct and needs no amplification. For this reason, my group will give its consent to enhanced cooperation. There were also some contrary opinions among us – this is quite legitimate and these voices should be heard. However, what the rapporteur, Council Presidency and Commissioner have had to say shows that the time has really come and that we cannot drag our feet any longer.
It is not the case, as some people claim, that this has all been agreed in haste without any discussion – like many of the other arguments, this is patently untrue. The language issue did not just become the subject of debate when the Commission presented its last proposal last year; this has been under discussion for a decade or more. There is nothing new about it. Anyone who looks at how different models have been presented and discussed in recent months cannot say that there has not been sufficient discussion. It is time to cut the Gordian knot!
The second argument always used here is that we risk destroying the internal market. The fact is that we do not have an internal market where patents are concerned, so we cannot really destroy it. If – as has been the case for a long time – we are clear about the fact that the internal market really does need a uniform patent process in order to reach completion, then the entire internal market cannot be destroyed by this move. In the worst case scenario, things would remain as they are. I do believe that we will make progress, however.
The third specific argument used is that Parliament would weaken its rights by consenting to enhanced cooperation: none of this is true. I would advise you to take a look at the Treaty of Lisbon and our Rules of Procedure. We will not relinquish a single right. We are now approving enhanced cooperation and, when this begins, we shall all have our individual rights. With regard to the language regime, of course this is simply a matter of consultation, since unanimity is required here. Codecision should apply to the actual patent regulation and the approval of patent jurisdiction, however. We are not relinquishing a single right, quite the opposite in fact."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples