Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.11.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to welcome what is a very well considered report, which invites us to stand back and take stock before embarking on further legislation in this field – a refreshing welcome from the tendency of this House sometimes to rush, or to be pushed to rush, at complex legislation.
I would particularly like to focus my comments on the issues raised by this report on the further harmonisation of private law. In our enthusiasm we sometimes forget what a sensitive subject the harmonisation of private law is; it touches the national legal traditions in our Member States, legal traditions born of our differing histories and cultures of separate nations and jurisdictions. Professor MacCormick will be acutely aware of this in Scotland, with its own legal heritage.
I am not in any way opposed to further harmonisation, it can be helpful to the good functioning of the internal market, but imposed legislative harmonisation needs to be carefully and openly considered, or we may find we have left our citizens behind in this project.
The traditional push towards harmonisation has been the internal market to which we can now add the aspirations of Tampere for a single area of European justice.
But harmonisation must respect subsidiarity – we have no need to rush towards uniformity of civil law in this area of product liability. We should be aware that uniformity can stifle innovation and prevent adaptation to local or national circumstances and problems. It is a truism that European law has been able to benefit from the ability to draw on rich comparative material of varying legal traditions in our different Member States. It would be dangerous to stifle this by uniformity.
Let me suggest that the aspirations of Tampere can be better met in the public law area of the intended Charter of Fundamental Rights than by further imposed legislation which harmonises our private law traditions. Research seems to show that our traditions are tending to converge slowly. Let us perhaps be prepared to assist and guide that convergence and respect the conditionality of the further harmonisation which is integral to Professor MacCormick’s proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples