Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.6.4-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should first like to recall the kind reference Mr MacCormick made to my intervention in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Mr MacCormick stated – it is, in fact, true – that I had said that the principle of subsidiarity was not a legal principle but rather a political principle. Having studied the report with great care, I have come to the conclusion that it is not even a political principle: it is a theological principle. Mr MacCormick, himself, has just pointed out that the principle was expressed by a pope, and it is clear that it is impregnated with theological considerations.
I should like to recall that in the seventeenth century a great Dutch lawyer, Hugo Groot, better known as Grotius, one of the founders of international law, warned theologians to stay out of legal matters with that famous phrase, ‘Silete, theologi, in munere alieno.’ At these moments I should like to express my sympathy, my admiration and my pity for the Commission for having to live with this kind of principle.
The second paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is utterly unintelligible. This definition is a circular definition, not a legal definition. It states that ‘In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.’ Nobody can understand that. Neither can anybody understand the Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam to define subsidiarity, nor Declaration No 30. The poor Commission has made a very commendable effort with the documents ‘Better Lawmaking 1998’ and ‘Better Lawmaking 1999’, in which it tries to be tolerant with this nonsense approved by the governments in the Treaty on European Union and the added Protocol.
The report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market did not gain much enthusiasm from its Members. The proof is that, of the 17 Members on the Committee, 8 voted in favour and 9 abstained. In other words there were more abstentions than votes in favour. The reason why there was so much abstention is that we Socialist Members on the Committee – and some other Members – were expressing our scepticism regarding the overvaluing of the subsidiarity concept in the report.
The subsidiarity concept as put forward in the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is a concept which has been exalted to heavenly heights, and therefore as a theological principle it lies beyond the scope of the Community.
We have submitted 12 amendments to the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs. We also support Amendment No 13 by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. We hope the House can accept our amendments, and if so we shall vote in favour. Otherwise we shall be obliged to vote against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples