Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-268"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.7.3-268"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what we have here is something of a difficult discussion. I am very pleased that the response has been given in this way, but I have to say that the answer is rather unsatisfactory. We have before us a proposal on which, as far as the objective is concerned, everyone is actually probably agreed. This objective is of course the holding of such a tripartite meeting. This is where all the problems start, however.
The Commission is making reference to Article 202; the Council evidently does not agree with this, because it is deliberating about it. In anticipation of the result of these deliberations there is no wish to seek an opinion from the European Parliament, in particular the opinion that is being prepared by Mr Ettl. We consider this a totally unacceptable situation. As coordinators of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs we have also spoken about it and it is our view that if things go on this way we shall have to seriously consider going to the European Court of Justice, because the rights of the European Parliament are being violated. I also think, Commissioner, that even if Article 202 is used as a basis, you are not applying the Article correctly. You must read the second part of 202, which states that there are indeed cases in which an opinion is not sought from the European Parliament, but that the matter must then have been determined in advance and with an opinion from the European Parliament or that a kind of mandate must have been given. Now, to the best of our knowledge, no mandate has been given here. In any event, everything requires full investigation.
I have to say, and this goes for the Council as well, that a lot of trouble could have been saved if the European Parliament had been asked for an opinion. Failure to do so gives this whole affair a rather sinister undertone. We are ourselves currently in the process of consulting Parliament’s Legal Affairs Department on this matter. It is of course possible to use a different legal basis, but I am sure that it will be extraordinarily difficult for the Council and the Commission to find a legal basis where no opinion from the European Parliament is required. After all, that is what this is all about and we are standing up for our rights. The rights of Parliament are already relatively limited when it comes to matters of this kind. That is partly perhaps with good reason, partly also it arises from the Treaty itself, but we cannot in any event accept further erosion of the already limited rights of Parliament in this way. That is the message I would like to give the Council and the Commission in their future deliberations.
Finally, I have one further question. If you indeed proceed to act on the basis of Article 202, should the costs of this operation not be covered by the Council rather than the Commission, as has been the case to date? Perhaps it will be possible to give an answer to this question as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples