Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-359-875"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121120.28.2-359-875"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It is true that the rapporteur’s proposals and some amendments seem to democratise and clarify some of the current legislative practices. However, the root of the problem is that vitally important legislative reports are adopted in small committees. Certainly, a rapporteur is appointed, which is logical, but shadow rapporteurs are also appointed (one per group), and they cobble together the work for Parliament’s ad hoc committee. In the worst cases, from the start a handful of people who are not representative of the whole political spectrum are appointed to negotiate with the Council and the Commission in order to arrive at a compromise as quickly as possible – a compromise that was agreed at the first reading. The result is that, with or without debate in plenary, we are now increasingly adopting reports drawn up, in reality, by a tiny minority of our technical colleagues. European laws are in fact decided by five or six nameless figures who claim to be experts. The all-powerful technocratic Commission at the centre, 27 Member States with a subdued majority, a few Members invested with the divine light of the other place – this is the reality of the legislative power of the European Union. That is why I abstained on this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples