Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-13-Speech-1-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030113.5.1-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I also want to express my gratitude and satisfaction that the Parliament is today debating this report on an initiative which came from Mr Napolitano himself.
Of course my group prefers the report in what we regard as the strengthened form in which it emerged from the committee, but which on some points Mr Napolitano thinks was pushed too far. No doubt that will be where the votes will be concentrated on Wednesday. However, it is a matter of common consensus that democracy in the European Union is necessarily democracy at many levels. The principle of subsidiarity is an iterative principle which works down the line and which should, as far as possible, enable people with local knowledge to apply that local knowledge, with common sense, to local circumstances, taking account of the purposes of the European legislation in question.
It is often said that a characteristic of the European method of legal interpretation is its purposive quality, and I feel that to some extent the local enforcers of European law should act with regard to the purpose not only to the letter of the law. That is not to say that I wish to see a different law operating in different parts of Europe, but it is difficult to have the same law operating identically where there are very different circumstances. For example, very arid countries will necessarily apply the same water law in a somewhat different way than very wet countries because the circumstances that lead to the application of the law vary and these need to be taken into account. That surely is important.
Another important matter is that the transposition of the directive should take account of the local circumstances; it is yet more important that the protocol on subsidiarity should encourage local and regional authorities to exercise a constructive discretion in enabling the directive to make the most possible sense at local level.
There are other points that have been raised which we think are vital as well. The regional authorities should on occasion be able to take matters to the Court of Justice. Just at the moment, in Scotland, the government, the Scottish Executive, the opposition parties, are all of the view for example that a recent compromise reached at the Fisheries Council violates the principle of proportionality. Why should it be left to the fishing people to test that? Why cannot the regional authority responsible for enforcing the law test it itself? Many other such examples sprint to mind. There should also be opportunities to take things into account during the legislative process and before it.
The EFA parties which I represent here do not just represent regions. Of course the countries we represent are regions in the technical constitutional sense. However it should not be forgotten – and Mr Lamassoure in his famous remarks about partner regions was not forgetting it – they are also among the ancient nations of Europe which deserve to be taken seriously. If it comes out of this Parliament, or out of the Convention, that there is nothing for a region between being a Member State and being nothing, then you know what answer you will get."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples