Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.6.1-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not wish to go into any more detail, but it has already been explained why the European limited liability company is so important. That is why the circumstances in which this form of company arose and the problems with which we must deal here are all the more regrettable. We all know that the Nice Summit was not exactly a raging success and, instead, produced a meagre result as far as the treaty negotiations are concerned. With this limited liability company, the Heads of State and Government intended to be able to offer us, as a minor success of this summit as it were, something which would at least take Europe a step further. In principle, this is of course to be welcomed. However, it is regrettable – absolutely regrettable – that the Heads of State and Government have disregarded the law and the Treaty by actually changing the legal base on the basis of the motto ‘we have now come to the agreement that, as regards this matter, Parliament is not to interfere’. They have replaced Article 95, which was clearly the legal base for one part of the process, with Article 308, which they have also used to replace Article 137 which clearly would have been the legal base for the other part of the process according to the text of the Treaty.
The result is no co-decision making; the result is unanimity in the Council, with decision-making resting solely with the government. Personally, I do not think that Parliament can accept this. Therefore, by a large majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs, we have amended the legal base and re-established the correct legal base, in other words Article 95 and Article 137. It is also interesting that this has been expressly established in the recitals to the original proposal and that the legal services have given their support to this. We have proceeded with consultations as with a co-decision procedure. I would like to warn the Council of the following: If they amend the legal base for this important process again in its second reading, then they are running the very serious risk of legal action from Parliament in this matter. I believe that we will win this action in the Court of Justice. The practical value of the process is, in our experience, rather limited anyway. I am referring to the letter from the president of UNICE. We have already referred to this within the committee. We have requested that fiscal regulations be revised, and I hope that this revision is carried out soon."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples