Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-16-Speech-5-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000616.5.5-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, fellow members, this Community law which we are helping to establish presents serious difficulties as far as application in Member States is concerned.
European citizens have used this last resort as a way of expressing their anger and indignation at the disruption and even destruction of their daily way of life, foisted on them by bureaucrats for a purpose that sometimes escapes us and for stakes that do not justify it.
While this report should have offered us an opportunity, as elected Members, to assess the many texts on which we are voting, and to learn from them for the future, we are limiting ourselves to a control/sanction approach. This type of constraining, over-regulated Europe is certainly not the one our respective fellow citizens want.
The way in which this report has been adopted is appalling. The rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has demonstrated absolute scorn for the Committee on Petitions by not even seeing fit to put its conclusions to the vote. Yesterday, the plenary displayed a similar contempt when it ignored the opinion of the Legal Affairs Committee regarding the Maaten report. I greatly fear that the trend will spread and the Commission will not see the text, on which we in this half-empty House are about to vote, as very much more important.
Rather than unnecessary amendments, I should like a response to the following question. The 1998 figures show that reasoned opinions have doubled in volume, cases of non-conformity or poor application, revealed automatically, have gone up by over 50%, complaints by 18% and letters of formal notice by 12%. This is not, at this stage, evidence of effective control, but rather of the existence of a profusion of texts which, in the hands of the judges, leave our national assemblies, which are expressing the popular will both legitimately and democratically, under threat of condemnations as well as of penalties.
Do the Commission and the rapporteur not think that it would be a good thing to reduce the number of texts and, above all, to modify those which quite clearly raise crucial political, legal and practical questions that do not appear to be so obvious and acute when they are framed, or would they prefer to carry on sanctioning our States and turning our fellow citizens into the real victims?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples