Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.2.2-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I should like to thank Mr Ari Vatanen for having succeeded, at the end of his speech, in giving a poetical dimension to this discussion. Naturally I have listened to all of you, and I shall pass on to Mrs de Palacio all your comments. We have also, Mr President, sent to Parliament’s Secretariat the Commission’s position on each of the proposed amendments.Perhaps you will allow me simply to make two or three observations in order to reply to some of the questions that you have raised.
Firstly, Mr Jarzembowski is worried about the negotiations with the United States. We shall be holding the first negotiations with the United States on 1 October, so work is only just beginning. I believe, however, that we cannot freeze all our agreements with other countries while awaiting the results of negotiations that we have started with the United States. Your rapporteur, Mr Schmitt, referred at the end of his speech to the sovereignty of Member States, and in particular he expressed concern about the question of whether Member States would or would not have to be given authorisation. Yes, Mr Schmitt, they will have to have authorisation. Member States are no longer competent to conclude the agreements for themselves; they now need authorisation at Community level. This, at any rate, is how we interpret the judgment of the Court.
Mrs Foster also wondered what will become of existing agreements, something that I mentioned just now in my preliminary remarks. There is no question of tearing them up or freezing them: we must preserve things as they are at present. However, it has to be admitted that the legal position has changed following the judgments of the Court. It seems to us, therefore, that we must now, by means of this proposed regulation, consolidate the situation so as to give it legal certainty and avoid any legal problems.
Finally, Mr President, the Commission has sent you its opinion on each of the amendments. It is also puzzled, like Mr Schmitt himself, and as Mr Simpson has pointed out, by the environmental amendments (Amendments Nos 9, 10 and 17), which seek to set precise environmental objectives for these negotiations. The regulation, as I have already mentioned, lays down the procedures governing the bilateral negotiations of Member States. This is not, in our opinion, the appropriate place to set political objectives for these negotiations or to define an environmental policy. Community policies on environmental matters are very well established. I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that the Commission will apply those Community policies in the negotiations that it will be conducting, and we hope that all Member States will respect their Community obligations. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendments I have just referred to are appropriate in this context. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples