Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-05-Speech-2-563-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110405.23.2-563-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, I must begin by regretting once again the complications that this report has encountered because of the resistance of the Council and the Commission to accepting Parliament’s powers of co-decision.
I call for this problem to be solved with a view to the future.
In this case, we have a proposal for Greenland, as an overseas country and territory, to be able to export under the same conditions as those applied to a European Union Member State. This situation would benefit both Greenland, which exports 87% of its fisheries products to the European Union, and the Union; Denmark in particular, which is the recipient of the majority of these exports.
One of the conditions for including Greenland in the single market import arrangements is that it should accept EU health rules, and this does not pose a problem in the least.
Despite the trade in fisheries products being subject to the common organisation of the market, the Commission, using the need for compliance with health rules as an excuse, tabled its proposal based on Article 203 of the Treaty, which meant a simple and straightforward consultation procedure for us.
Both the Committee on Fisheries and the legal services pointed out this anomaly from the outset. However, as it presents no problems in terms of content, and given its importance to Greenland, we are allowing the report to be processed under the consultation procedure. Imagine our surprise when, just as we were about to vote on the text and without prior warning, the Council adopted a completely different proposal, with numerous changes attempting to obscure the clear link with the common organisation of the market and so avoid co-decision. Since Parliament had – as I said before – already adopted the text using the consultation procedure without any problems, such manoeuvring was uncalled-for.
Nevertheless, as we were faced with a new text, and given the clear proof that the Council’s goal was to erode Parliament’s powers, we decided that, this time, we would use those powers to the full and request a formal opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs.
In that opinion, the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs was – and I am quoting directly from the text – that ‘the purpose of the proposed decision is to require Greenland to transpose EU health rules as a condition for the application of the EU internal market rules as regards fisheries’, as specified in Article 3 of the proposal itself, which guarantees that the agreement’s rules will be adapted to the applicable rules established in the Union as regards animal health and food safety, as well as the common organisation of the market in fishery products.
Consequently, the Committee on Legal Affairs came to the unanimous decision that Articles 204 and 43(2) of the Treaty, along with Protocol No 34, which includes specific arrangements and procedures for products subject to the common organisation of the market in fishery products in Greenland, should form the legal basis for the proposal. Therefore, as rapporteur, I drew up another draft report, modifying the legal basis. That is what we are tabling for adoption tomorrow and, as far as the European Parliament is concerned, it is our first reading.
All, then, that remains is for me to tell the Commission and the Council – which I believe to be absent – that they now have an opportunity to correct and recognise the new legal basis, and, therefore, to consider this the first reading, as we will be doing tomorrow. The problem is with the legal basis and not the content."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples