Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.4.2-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the aim of Mr Corbett’s report is to strengthen Parliament’s powers of control over the texts implementing legislative acts prepared by the Commission in the context of what is mysteriously known as comitology.
The PPE-DE approves the main thrust of the report and in particular it supports the idea that, in the case of a disagreement between Parliament and the Commission on a draft implementing text, the latter should not be able to override Parliament’s opposition. If the Commission did not agree with Parliament on this point, the PPE-DE would gladly support the request that could be made by the rapporteur for a referral to committee.
There are two points on which we disagree with Mr Corbett’s report, however. Firstly, it lays down that if Parliament does not agree to the text proposed by the Commission, the latter may simply withdraw its text without preparing a new one and without taking any legislative initiative. This power seems to us to be completely excessive. It is equivalent to an authorisation to go on strike as far as the production of implementing texts is concerned, and we cannot support it. The aim of our requests for a separate vote is to rule out such a possibility.
Secondly, Mr Corbett’s report suggests that, if the Commission were to undertake a new legislative initiative, because it thought it would be impossible to overcome its disagreement with Parliament simply by amending its text, the text prepared by the Commission would be provisionally applicable until the adoption of the new legislative text.
We do not believe that this is acceptable. In fact, it seems to us to be an abuse to allow the Commission to override, for a very long period, the opposition of Parliament, even when the disagreement between the two institutions is so serious and so deep-seated that it cannot be overcome by a simple amendment to the draft, but requires recourse to a legislative procedure.
To give the Commission the power to impose the disputed text, for several months or even years, would be to acknowledge officially that the Commission has the power to ignore or violate the law.
Those are the two reservations that we have. We have not tabled amendments, but merely requests for a separate vote, the aim of which is to correct the report on this point. Otherwise we approve the report and we congratulate the rapporteur for his work, which is remarkable for its quality."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples