Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-16-Speech-4-035"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991216.2.4-035"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-16-Speech-4-0362
lpv:speaker	lp:Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, if the Council and the Commission are not in a position to clarify this, then I shall endeavour to do so. The Council did not decide to postpone for a year, but a conclusion was accepted whereby if Parliament accepts a proposed amendment in this report on labelling and does not pass the Commission proposal without proposed amendments, then the Council will not accept any such amendments and will not proceed under the simplified procedure. If we dare to accept a proposed amendment, the Council will agree to the Commission’s tabling another text which has already been dealt with in the Council. If it is tabled as an official Commission proposal in accordance with our procedure, then the Council will vote in favour of it. This proposal will state, in accordance with the procedure in Regulation 820/97, that compulsory labelling is not in fact postponed but that it is allowed, for the purposes of implementation, to continue using voluntary labelling for a further year. This means that, to all intents and purposes, Parliament has been levered out, although the conclusion is such that we cannot say that they have already made a decision. A dirty trick has been used to keep us out of the codecision procedure. This is the second time because this was the case in 1997 when the Council bowled us out of the codecision procedure with a unanimous decision. We complained about this before the European Court of Justice. This time, where codecision applies quite clearly under Article 152 of the Amsterdam Treaty, it has used this procedure to bowl us out a second time. Most probably we shall again discuss renewed recourse to the European Court of Justice to protest against this illegal procedure by the Council."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph