Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.9.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can be brief. Firstly, I should like to thank you for your constructive contributions to this debate on the two reports. Secondly, I should like to address a few of the points that have been raised. I think – as Mr Medina Ortega rightly pointed out – that the main way in which European legislative initiatives will be simplified is that in the future it will be possible to consolidate 25 different legal acts into one single one. I do not believe that this can be stressed enough, particularly given that the institutions of the European Union are, as we know, constantly being accused of being somewhat legislation-happy. The reality is rather different. You are probably aware that we did actually look into this a few years ago and it turned out that the Member States introduce more new pieces of legislation every year than the Community has introduced since its inception. This is a clear indication that you are right to make this assertion. Nevertheless, this does not absolve us from our obligation also to organise our European laws properly: organise their preparation, but also how they are structured, so that they meet the appropriate standards of transparency and clarity.
Above all, however, it will be important to identify what these days we often refer to as ‘European added value’, because any legislative initiatives with no such added value should have a large question mark over them. This is an important point, particularly in the light of the new European constitution, which specifically states that legislation should be subject to such a test.
As far as tripartite contracts are concerned, I certainly do believe that it is sensible to conclude such tripartite contracts, and I do not agree with Mr Bradbourn, who thinks that they would ride roughshod over national interests. For a start, one of the three parties to these contracts will be the Member State. Without the agreement of the Member State such a contract does not even come into being. I therefore do not understand your fears at all. I would tend to see this the other way round. I regard it as important, particularly for example in structural policy or in my own area, rural development policy, for us to make greater use of the bottom-up approach and to allow that to become a reality, because this gives the people on the ground a better idea of who is responsible for their problems. That is how you should look at it, and that is why we have also taken the precaution of first having a trial period and then an evaluation. That is as it were the icing on the cake. Having said this, I should like to thank you once more for giving such a favourable response to these reports."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples