Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.4.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposals made by Alexander Lamfalussy on the type of legislative process needed in connection with the implementation of the financial services package are a step in the right direction because, for the first time, a clear distinction has been made here between the law, the directive, the regulation passed by the Council and Parliament and the technical implementation of the directive. As a result, adjustments to new developments in the technical sector can be made much more quickly than was the case in the past.
The Heads of State or Government decided that the European Economic Area should become the most modern and the most competitive economic area, and this calls for a modern legislative procedure. If what has been thought up here later proves its worth, it can be applied in other areas during the technical legislative procedure, perhaps including agriculture.
So what exactly is the problem? The problem is that even technical implementation, i.e. even the regulations issued on this basis, often conceal problems for our citizens. Here policy must be able to intervene and pull these points back into the decision-making process of the policy. When this happens, given that it is a codecision procedure, the European Parliament must have the same rights as the Council. What was agreed in Stockholm is a good agreement between the Commission and the Council, but Parliament has still been left out, which is why we need further negotiations in order to bring about a result which will also satisfy Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples