Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.7.3-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too should like to thank my fellow Members for their reports and the Commission. I think that this form of cooperation has brought about a good compromise which may not, of course, be supported on all points by the whole House but which has demonstrated nonetheless that we are often able, through productive debate, to bring about a result which, on several counts, has real potential for development over and above the Commission's concept.
The crucial question throughout has been whether or not to support Mrs Niebler's amendment – my fellow Member, Mr van Velzen, is engaged in conversation just now, but he addressed this point and pleaded in favour of it. I too am in favour of our supporting it, addressing as it does the crucial question of how harmonisation is to be organised at European level. The Commission has rightly pointed out that we need more harmonisation in this sector and more uniform structures. Of that there can be no question; we have been discussing this point for years. I have in the past always been a fanatical advocate of a single European regulatory authority but this idea is now dead and buried. We opted for a different variant and I think that numerous regulatory authorities have demonstrated that they are independent, self-sufficient and autonomous and that the state too is more than capable of developing excellent competition models here.
Of course, there are other models which fall short of our expectations at European level, of that there can be no doubt, and something needs to be done here. The crucial question is how to configure the relationship between the European and national levels and here I would have preferred a lighter model, either along the lines suggested by me and my fellow Member, Norbert Glante, or along the lines of Mrs Niebler's model. Which is why I shall call for a vote in favour of Mrs Niebler's amendment tomorrow.
Once again, we must pause for thought and I am most grateful to Malcolm Harbour and Nicholas Clegg, who have pointed out that they have been wondering in the meantime if the variations which they supported were the right ones and I think that is most intelligent of them. We have enough time to consider this between now and the second reading; perhaps we shall have found a common approach by then."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples