Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.7.2-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The new Rule 6a(13) of the Rules of Procedure, as adopted following the Duff report, states: ‘The [competent] committee [of the European Parliament], after consulting the Member States, may draw up an indicative list of the authorities of the Member States which are competent to present a request for waiving the immunity of a Member’.
As I said yesterday, this convoluted wording has but one objective: to avoid clearly recognising a national competence which is a hindrance to the European Parliament. To avoid admitting this, the text begins by saying that the European Parliament has the right to draw up a list. As this right is pure fabrication, it is quickly added that the list is 'indicative’. Thirdly, as this cramping of the European Parliament’s style is still not appreciated, it is specified that the Member States are to be ‘consulted’, which appears to mean that they do not decide. What is more, we do not know what they are consulted on either: whether it is the principle of the list or its content.
This is one of the methods traditionally used by the European institutions to take over national competences: they begin by completely confusing the issue, then they say that the situation is too complicated and that, in order to simplify it, competence must be transferred to Brussels."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples