Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.3.2-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I broadly share the legal assessment this report makes of the Community legal system. One could hardly agree more with the rapporteur’s observation that we are facing real legislative, procedural and linguistic chaos; and even more so when he says that the inconsistency between the various categories of legal acts of which this system comprises is making it unintelligible to members of the public, even the most well informed about legal issues. The current framework ignores any principle for designating legal acts and is based on terms that are frequently obscure and sometimes misleading.
Nevertheless, I could not support the report when, in political terms, it seeks to take advantage of this need to establish a coherent typology of Community laws and a logical hierarchy of acts – a legislative necessity – in order to move forwards in the ‘long march’ of the highly debatable federalist and constitutional doctrine, presuming that a ‘de facto’ sovereign European State with constituent power already exists and goes so far as to omit any reference whatsoever to national parliaments or actually proposing to end the procedure based on the Treaties themselves.
The fact is that giving the Community legal system coherence and clarity by no means requires imposing a federal legislative framework and this is something we all know. I have, therefore, voted against the report, whilst regretting that the rapporteur – who has produced a technically superb piece of work – should have blundered into what I consider to be federalist opportunism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples