Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.6.3-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I will just take as read my group's support for the Lamfalussy report and for the reasoning in it. I want to come to the nub of the issue here before us. I am not reassured by the assurances of the Council and the Commission that we in Parliament are fully looked after in this process. Of course, we must respect the treaties. Of course, we must understand the difference between primary law and secondary legislation as referred to in Lamfalussy. And of course, we have as a potential point of departure the June 1999 interinstitutional agreement on comitology.
We stand at a special moment where we can seize an opportunity as institutions together to creatively pursue something that we have failed miserably to do so far. There is a long list of blockages noted by Lamfalussy and they are primarily the blockages of the Council of Ministers. There is a long list of failures to implement and they are primarily a responsibility for the Commission as guardian of the Treaty to enforce. There is no point in going back to the past when we can seize this moment to create a much better future without delay in terms of a single financial market.
Yes, we have rights in the primary legislation. We have the right, as has been said, to define the scope of the legislation and of the derogated powers to the regulators and securities committees. But there is a feedback system in this. Will we give them a millimetre or a metre? A metre or a kilometre? I will tell you – we will dole it out in accordance with our view of its democratic scrutiny, its balance, its parallelism between the legislative institutions and its accountability. If you want speed and substance, if you want, Commissioner and Council, the flexibility to give tomorrow's solutions to tomorrow's problems, and not to yesterday's problems, then we need to give these committees a wide latitude but be able to call back, if necessary, on reflection. No callback – no wide latitude. We have a big choice to make. What are we pursuing here? It is not simply a closed loop. In the primary round we get to decide how wide is the secondary discretion and how wide it will be. It will partly depend on how open and democratic is it and how balanced it is in terms of the two legislative arms of this Union.
Let me turn to the bit of the debate that has not mentioned its name. Even as the Council sits here and – if I might say even with due deference to all the politeness of the Minister – throws the book at us and says, "There is a treaty; there is a procedure. We will inform you, we will send you the minutes, but otherwise please go away," I do not accept that message. I want to know from the Council as you give us that message why do you or at least some Member States go through the back door and use annexes, attached for other reasons on sensitive issues, to the June 1999 decision and make up new comitology rules for yourselves to jump from qualified majority de facto to simply majority as leverage on the European Commission. This is not acceptable. There should be not two rules but one rule, one democracy, one openness."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples