Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I apologise for being late, but we have been trying to reach an eleventh-hour compromise so as to obtain a qualified majority.
Mr President, Council, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, above all, thank you for the pleasant working relationship in this particularly complex and taxing matter, which is both legally complex and politically sensitive. This cooperation has enabled us to vote in December after all, and I can see a possibility of reaching a compromise with the Council in this. We have already consulted the Council, and I can see some scope, that is if Parliament dares take a qualified vote about a package I have distributed a moment ago, for I see that as being, after all, a minimum requirement in the large groups.
I also thank you for the option of postponing the vote to Wednesday in view of the translations not all having been received. They have now been delivered, but at least I now have some extra time to reach those compromises. And in the final analysis, this is very much to be welcomed.
The whole procedure has turned out to be very difficult. Parliament had to vote on which committee should lead in handling this report, and that is, as far as I know, unique in the history of this Parliament. This has exposed quite a few sensitivities, some of which are excessive.
I see the text we adopted at first reading as being a reasonably balanced one. Unfortunately, the Council has once again toned it down considerably with very many instances of the word 'may'. In other words, Member States are 'allowed' to introduce something. These should, I think, nearly all be replaced by 'shall'. Indeed, I take the view that both the environment and the economy would benefit if we could create a level playing field instead of creating this patchwork of environmental legislation about Europe, which benefits neither the economy nor the environment. This level playing field is of huge importance. During the discussion of the previous report, I noticed that many Members could talk of nothing else but the fact that it was agreed in Lisbon that Europe should become the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy. We should therefore have the nerve to take decisions that transcend our national interests, and transcend certain political items which we would like to realise. For after all, it is the result that counts and not the fact that I can walk up to my electorate and say: ‘Look how brave I have been to propose this. I may not have achieved anything, but I have proposed it’. I would regret it if we were unable to reach a qualified majority in some key areas at least, thus giving us some negotiating room in respect of the Council to remove some of those 'mays'.
Fortunately, the joint proposal does contain many texts that were included in Parliament's adopted text, albeit considerably watered-down by those 'mays', and, last week, I think, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market adopted a number of pertinent texts, specifically on financial security with a built-in ceiling and the compulsory financial insurances that are possible over a certain period of time. It is useful and necessary to be able to guarantee insurability. With unlimited liability, not one insurance company will want to conclude policies, unless they introduce these themselves. I fear that we then end up with a situation that is completely out of control, one I do not think will work, either for the economy or for the environment.
Consequently, we have once again endorsed state liability, the governments’ safety net function. It is necessary for all Member States to be forced to monitor carefully the permits that are being issued and to check these as well. We need this big stick.
In addition, an amendment has been rejected on a mitigation system, a system whereby the factors are weighed up. Since an amendment with far-reaching defence measures, full exemptions and exceptions, has been adopted, this amendment has not made it unfortunately. As it has been re-tabled, I hope that we can find a qualified majority for these three important points, and that we can also introduce it in Europe. I think that the environment stands to benefit from this, as does our economy, because we will then have minimum harmonisation. That is particularly beneficial for the environment, which does not have any boundaries. Within the internal market that we want to optimise, there are no boundaries for our companies either, so as far as this is concerned, I think that minimum harmonisation is an excellent starting point that benefits both the environment and our economy.
If we fail to reach a qualified majority on these points, I think that, on the eve of the elections, this Parliament should hang its head in shame, because we have given the Council free rein to lay down the detail of something that is tremendously important, and I would regret that. I hope that we will be spared this loss of face, and that we manage to find a qualified majority, particularly for the points that I have just mentioned. I will pull out all the stops for this, and we have all day tomorrow as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples