Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.4.3-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I fully subscribe to the intervention by Mr Von Wogau and I shall make some additional remarks. The Lamfalussy report is based on one sure fact: the legislative procedure we have is too slow and prevents us from shaping legislation to market needs in time. What the Lamfalussy report does not say is that the point where legislation on this matter normally gets bogged down is in the Council. Therefore I think the telling-off was aimed at the wrong culprit. Secondly, the Lamfalussy report tries to solve this problem by delegating the drawing up of enforcement measures to a stocks and shares committee in which the Council and Commission do not lose an iota of the power they had, while Parliament’s power is cut back. In my opinion, the solution prescribed may generate a lack of confidence which, in the long term, will result in an even slower process than we have had until now. What Parliament is asking is that when a rule of enforcement goes too far in relation to general principles, it must not be seen as a mandatory rule but as an unlawful one. We are not asking the Commission to take our opinion into consideration; if the rule goes too far, the rule is not a rule. That is what the theory of the mandate says, which I learnt in Roman Law, or the theory of the delegation of powers, which I learnt in Political Law. But perhaps the most important thing in this deviation of the Lamfalussy report, which has been taken up by the Stockholm Council, is the intergovernmental deviation to the detriment of the Community method of drawing up rules, and secondly, and even more importantly, the desire to speed up the liberalisation of the internal financial services market without, at the same time, adjusting the rules and measures that provide controls or safeguards. Under these conditions we could find ourselves with a hypermarket with no political control, in which the nation states are subordinated to semi-political decisions made by economic agents that would move with absolute freedom around the Union. We had more or less the same discussion before the Single European Act, when fortunately Mrs Thatcher’s ideas did not triumph."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples