Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.4.2-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all let me stress that the proposed amendments and the speeches made indicate that much thought and effort has gone into the examination of this proposal, which aims to enhance the role of the European Parliament in the institutional triangle.
As far as possible, the Commission will take into account the detailed amendments proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The Commission can accept, in whole or in part, Amendments Nos 1, 2 (in part), 4, 7, 8, 11 (in part), 13, 14, 18 and 19. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 3, 10 or 11 (in part), as they could complicate the Commission's negotiations with the Council.
The Commission's proposal aims to give the European Parliament and the Council equal rights as co-legislators in controlling the Commission; but the proposal cannot go further than or beyond the scope of the present Treaty, which does not provide for explicit delegation of legislative power to the Commission. The Commission, as the sole executive, should be able to retain full responsibility for adopting executive instruments. This political responsibility goes hand in hand with the freedom of the Commission to adopt a decision, taking on board or not the objections raised by the legislator. The deletion of 'possibly' would tie the hands of the Commission and prevent it from exercising its responsibility as the executive.
The withdrawal option, as formulated in Mr Corbett's Amendments Nos 3, 10 and 11, would effectively amount to replacing the freedom of adoption by the Commission by an explicit withdrawal or non-action by the Commission. If the Commission's views are not in line with those of the legislator, the Commission would be obliged to renounce the adoption of an implementing measure. Substitution of the Commission's responsibility and freedom to adopt an implementing measure via the non-action option would also send the wrong political signal to stakeholders.
The proposal is, on the contrary, based on the assumption that action is needed and that the Commission will take responsibility for it. Given the scope afforded by the current Treaty, these amendments are therefore not acceptable to the Commission. The proposal indeed goes as far as possible towards granting the European Parliament the control rights that, as a co-legislator, it should possess.
The reform, as I have just mentioned, cannot go as far as a more thoroughgoing reform conducted in the process of amending the Treaty. In the framework of the European Convention, the Commission has explicitly suggested that the Council and the European Parliament should, under delegation of legislative powers, have the possibility to oppose a text proposed by the Commission. In this scenario the latter would indeed either renounce its text, modify it or present a legislative proposal.
To conclude, I can assure you that the Commission will endeavour to achieve progress on this issue in the Council. I would like to conclude that the Commission needs Parliament's support in negotiating the strengthening of the European Parliament's prerogatives with the Council. I am confident that the Commission can count on Parliament's continued support in the process of clarifying the roles and competences of the executive and the legislator."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples