Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.5.1-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the hierarchy of acts is a topic that under normal circumstances would drive any normal human being from the room, but I believe it is becoming evident how important this report by Mr Bourlanges is in terms of the EU's legal capacity and, of course, also in terms of the comprehensibility and – as we shall see – democratisation of the decision-making process. Back home, our acts are on three levels: the constitution, the laws and the implementing provisions subordinate to the laws. In the EU, we have thirty different instruments. The EU's box of instruments is therefore far too big and hence also far too confusing, as nobody can find their way around it and the terminology, too, is all over the place. We are dealing, then, with a system that is utterly lacking in transparency and is also to some degree undemocratic.
What makes the Bourlanges Report so creditable is that it represents a quantum leap in this area. This really is a great leap forward in terms of clarity and democratisation. By dint of a great deal of effort, we have attempted to locate the three levels within the EU as well: the constitutional level, the legislative level and the subordinate
acts. As regards the constitutional level, it is my view that there will have to be a less cumbersome review procedure for the second part of the constitution. If we are to require unanimity from 25 or more states in order to amend any of the provisions in the second part, we know perfectly well that we will have a blockade on our hands. This is, of course, a highly sensitive issue, though, as majority decisions obviously mean that someone can end up losing. But this leap must be made, and this inner will must be present, or else we will be vetoing each other, and the public does not want that.
In terms of lawmaking, the first step is for us to call laws ‘laws’ and not – as we currently do – ‘regulations’, an expression that in German denotes an administrative act that is not a law. I would be very much in favour of the terms ‘Union law’ and ‘Union framework law’ being used and of codecision being the rule, which it must be in every kind of lawmaking. For legislation on the budget – and decisions on the budget are another very important prerogative of Parliament – there will surely be a need for a special procedure, but the principle of codecision should remain the same.
The third issue, that of separating normal lawmaking by Parliament and the Council from the implementing provisions enacted by the Commission, is of great significance. We need to be clear in our own minds here about what is legislative and what is executive. We could make things easier for ourselves if we in Parliament were not to enact technical regulations, but only the acts underlying them. Mr President, I believe that what we have here is a great success; many thanks to Mr Bourlanges, who has made such an effort and presented a truly great report!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples