Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-16-Speech-4-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020516.4.4-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The French delegation in my group has no intention whatsoever of endorsing the conclusions of this own initiative report.
The current system for division of competences is horribly complex, it is true. We agree with the rapporteur that the Member States ‘must have competence under the ordinary law and the Union must enjoy only the competences allocated to it’. And, we cannot deny that there is a widening gulf between citizens’ expectations of Europe and the issues it actually deals with.
However, there is no justification for rules clarifying the division of competences to be introduced in a ‘European constitution’ which the people have given neither Parliament nor the Convention a mandate to draft.
Even if we clearly need to define a hierarchy of Community rules, this does not mean that Parliament’s legislative competences should increase as a result. The democratic legitimacy of the Union derives solely from the consent and from the participation of the people in the process under way. In other words, it resides within the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the national parliaments. Finally, we reject this report because, on the pretext of improving the division of competences, the rapporteur is merely seeking to increase the Union’s and Parliament’s competences ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Explanation of vote shortened pursuant to Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples