Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.8.1-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is an important directive. It is important firstly because – as the rapporteur said – it is one of these completely successful cases of taking advantage of the opportunities made possible by the former Article 138B of the Treaty of Maastricht, in other words, this Parliament is launching an initiative that will be taken up by the Commission and followed up by the Council.
The rapporteur said that this is also an example of good cooperation between the three institutions. However, I would like to highlight the hard work, which has been notable and entirely praiseworthy, almost Herculean, of the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, throughout the process, from the conception of the basic idea to the follow-up, full of passion and rigour, of the legislative work that has been carried out.
This is also an important directive, however, because now, when we are so concerned about the indifference of European citizens – who do not turn out to vote, who feel that Europe is very distant from them and who do not know whether Brussels is anything more than a place which produces what they perceive to be obligations – this is a good example of what our citizens really feel and understand to be the case. This is something that they will notice in their daily lives because any of them may have a car, and any of them, even if they do not travel abroad much, will have the idea that “well, if I do go abroad at least I will be covered”. It offers some security.
It is important for another reason. Mr President, I would like to say most emphatically on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, that the large majority of us support the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, on the only point of real controversy which, as he has made very clear, is its field of application. There is a, shall we say, technical problem in the way it will apply but we will have to resolve these issues from a technical point of view. We utterly refuse to change the philosophy of it. This Parliament has shown itself to be clearly opposed to moving from the idea of a binding law to the idea of a voluntary pact between people who are insured with a voluntary subscription on their part.
From that starting point, we can discuss the matter. If it is true – and it is true, and I was the first to recognise this as I was quite opposed to this idea, defended from the outset by Mr Rothley -, that some technical modifications will need to be made, then so be it. Let us not forget though that these modifications are to some extent an unnecessary clarification – and Mr Rothley is right in this – because in no case can a directive affect private international law or the rules of procedure.
If these clarifications need to be made, we will make them. If an item needs to be revised, it shall be revised. If we need to make a modification, we shall do so. However, Mr President, in any event, the Group of the European People’s Party maintains that we will not change our philosophy. We are not prepared to replace this philosophy of binding law with another one that is completely uncertain and not very favourable to the European citizen, to a voluntary subscription scheme."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples