Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-053"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Takeover bids2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010703.2.2-053"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-07-03-Speech-2-0542
lpv:speaker	lp:Luis Berenguer Fuster2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, when it comes to adopting a position on this final interlegislative phase of the directive, we must not base our positions on its content, but instead consider the role of the European Parliament in the codecision procedure. If we look closely at what has happened, we will reach the conclusion that, so far, the system has not worked. I know that it is difficult for decisions to be reached in Council, for governments holding divergent positions and countries with different legal traditions to reach agreement, but I have the feeling, or rather I am certain, that this consensus in Council is being sought with no awareness at all of the European Parliament’s thoughts on the legislation’s content. Of course, when agreement is reached within the Council, any proposal by Parliament which goes against this comes to be seen as a threat to an agreement that has been reached, sometimes and which may hang in the balance. In these circumstances, the Council ultimately becomes intransigent and adopts a position that always implies: either you do what we say or the law will not be adopted. Mr Provan’s words have shown that the Council has attached less importance to achieving an agreement with the European Parliament than to the feeling that a certain country would not meet a commitment that it had previously given. When Parliament studied the content of the common position at second reading, it was particularly concerned about two issues: workers’ participation and the obligation to neutrality imposed on boards of management. With regard to these two items, a majority of the European Parliament had the audacity to oppose what had previously been decided on in Council. I consider it to be extremely serious that no consideration was given at first reading to the positions of the European Parliament on workers and their representatives being fully informed and being able to state their opinion on the takeover of their companies and this justifies the European Parliament’s opposition to the common position. Furthermore, the fact that this Parliament sought a balance between those for and against allowing defensive manoeuvres, far from deserving the criticism heaped upon it by certain self-interested sectors, should have their gratitude, because the European Parliament’s position was not to allow any type of defensive manoeuvring as was suggested, with considerable bias, to the media. You simply have to study the content of the amendments tabled to see that this statement is false. We do not look favourably on the Council position of rejecting any possible agreement with the positions of this Parliament."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"in extremis"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph