Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-286"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.17.3-286"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I need not repeat what the rapporteur said or the points Mr Coelho made. All that is indeed very true and correct. It is easy to counterfeit the euro. We are going through a dangerous transitional phase in which a phenomenon has appeared in criminal law that is perhaps unique in monetary history. It is that a currency that does not even exist yet, that is not in circulation, but exists only as bank deposit money, can nevertheless be counterfeited already. Yet because that currency is not yet in circulation as such, counterfeiting euros does not at present constitute a criminal offence.
It is a highly complex problem. If we do not act promptly – as Mrs Cederschiöld rightly said – anyone can produce a few counterfeit euros now and possibly not be prosecuted for subsequently putting them into circulation. Let me say in passing that this may seem an attractive prospect for a number of people.
So what is the European Union doing about it? It is doing a number of things that are right, as Mrs Cederschiöld has described; but, in the context of these things she described, Parliament must look not so much at the content of the framework decision, not so much at the report drawn up by Mrs Cederschiöld, but more at the procedures that are being applied.
The manner in which the Council, which is by far the most undemocratic institution in Europe, consulted the European Parliament makes a mockery of the concept of democracy. We received a text for consultation which the Council had been working on for a very long time, incidentally with only partial success – I will come to that in a moment.
Now the European Parliament is supposed to state its position on this complex, difficult and, at times, contradictory Council document in the space of three months. It is only thanks to the immense efforts of Mrs Cederschiöld and to Parliament’s decision not to stand by its democratic right to conduct its advisory procedure over an adequate period of time and to have all the documents available in all the languages, that we have now managed to give our position by the date set by the Council, so that the decision scheduled for March can indeed be taken.
On a subject as important as counterfeiting and protection against counterfeiting and harmonising the necessary criminal law provisions we cannot really work at the ridiculous pace the Council is demanding of us. So let me state quite clearly here, on behalf of my group, that we discussed at length with Mrs Cederschiöld whether it is reasonable to work like this. We concluded that it is not, but given the importance of the issue we nonetheless agreed to accept this procedure.
This framework decision does without any doubt represent some progress. Only, as Mrs Cederschiöld pointed out, in the end it does not fully achieve the legal certainty the Council wanted because various shortcomings have not been dealt with. They relate to the minimum rules we are seeking to establish, the minimum rules relating to a punishable offence and in particular the application of the same criminal law norms in all Member States, including those that have not yet introduced the euro but where it could theoretically be counterfeited. One reason they have not been dealt with is that as ever the leopard cannot change its spots, i.e. in the case of this framework decision, which specifically relates to judicial cooperation, the Council once again prefers to adhere to the level of government cooperation. That is why, and I quote, this framework decision “is confined to supplementing the provisions of the International Convention of 20 April 1929 for the suppression of counterfeiting and its Protocol”, i.e. the provisions of a timeworn international convention that is a good 71 years old. That means that the legal basis we are now seeking to establish to protect the euro does not derive from Community legislation, as it should, but merely takes the form of provisions supplementing an international convention dating back 71 years.
I leave it to the assembled company in this Chamber to decide whether that can be the future of a European Union based on judicial cooperation. Thank you for your attention during our night sitting together."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples