Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-281"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020515.10.3-281"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when Mrs Kaufmann spoke, the German team started to fall back.
I do not want to suggest, however, that there is any connection. I am far more worked up about the sentiments Mr de Gaulle has just expressed, as, if he wants to make speeches expressing the desire to take the European Union back to the days before the internal market, one has to say that he was not thinking of France's economic interests. I am, therefore very grateful to Mr Lamassoure for what he said, for I believe that the model he has put forward possesses the balance called for between the clear regulation of competences and the need for us to live up to Walter Hallstein's saying that the European Union is a
. What this means is that we are in a position to continue the European Union's development in line with what is needed. It is of course perfectly clear that, when applying the subsidiarity principle, we must always take decisions in such a way that the decision is taken at the level at which it ideally should be. On the other hand, though, we also have to make it clear that it is only appropriately clear delimitation that will enable us, in the negotiating process in the Convention and in the ensuing Intergovernmental Conference, to get agreement to us pushing through majority voting in the remaining areas as well.
There is a close connection here between clear competences and the further extension of majority voting, by which alone the former will be accepted both in political circles in the national capitals and among the public, who want this very clarity on this issue. We cannot, though, create clarity in a conflict situation via the political level. If a subsidiarity committee, consisting – as it would have to – of at least 100 MEPs and members of national Parliaments, were to be set up, decisions would be reached on the very same grounds of political opportunism as they are in the Council of Ministers and in this Parliament. If, however, the regionality principle is applied, even a minority has a chance of getting its view accepted if it believes that powers have been exceeded. That is why Mr Lamassoure's approach, taking the matter to the European Court of Justice, is exactly the right one. It would make it possible, both in the normal procedure and in this accelerated procedure, by way of a range of groups and institutions possessing the right of action, to defend competences where it is believed that the legislature is exceeding its powers.
I would like to propose to you that the national parliaments should also be added to the list of those bodies that possess the right of action in the ECJ. I see making this possible as extraordinarily important, tactically astute from Parliament's point of view and in its interests, and, in this case, as necessary and imperative. In most countries whose regions have the power to pass legislation, those regions have such a right of action through the medium of a national chamber, and this is something that could, to a substantial extent, be taken up. I do think that this is the decisive point of departure for achieving real decision-making power, getting responsibilities clearly defined, thereby gaining their acceptance, and at the same time guaranteeing legal certainty. For that reason I would like to congratulate Mr Lamassoure on his report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples