Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-123"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Monitoring application of Community law (1999)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010903.8.1-123"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-03-Speech-1-1242
lpv:speaker	lp:Ole Krarup2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-10-08--2001-09-09)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-12-10)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as has been said, the application of Community law does of course constitute nothing less than the decisive turning point in the European Union. The EU stands or falls according to whether or not a common, effective legal system is established. Community law, the ‘ ’ and European unity are based upon European law. However, the problem, which is illustrated very clearly in the Commission’s report as well as in the previous reports and in this one, is that there is no such thing as European law, any more than there is such a thing as a single European people. There are profound differences between the different legal systems. The Roman-dominated common law and the Nordic legal traditions are incredibly different on a range of crucial points. Legal systems cannot, as it were, be transplanted like flowers from one pot to another. There are a number of structural, or what might be called cultural, differences, and that is also transparently obvious from this report. Paragraph D contains a statement well worth noting. The European Parliament believes that one of the reasons for the poor implementation of Community law is the inability ‘correctly to understand secondary Community legislation’. I thought that this was a translation error, even though the translation services are well thought of, but we find the same turn of phrase in a number of other languages: ‘ ’, ‘ ’ etc. It is therefore impossible to achieve a correct application of secondary Community legislation. That is certainly an interesting acknowledgement. It might even be imagined that, as previous speakers have suggested, integration and supranational regulation have consequently gone too far, but that is not the conclusion. As is made clear, using almost military technology, on page 11 of the report, the conclusion is that we must establish a system leading to the ‘elimination of national opposition’. If Community law and national legislation are inconsistent, respect for national legal traditions will decline, and this may perhaps be an explanation of why, not only in Denmark but also in Ireland and many other places, there is growing opposition to this system."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"l'impossibilité d'une compréhension correcte"1 "umuligt at opnå en korrekt forståelse"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph