Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.4.3-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I supported this recommendation for second reading which, by retabling those Parliamentary amendments that were adopted at previous reading and by improving the text of the common position adopted by the Council, better serves the aim of harmonising national legislation in the field of measuring instruments.
The increasing complexity of today’s economies and the need to ensure fair trade require a minimum level of accuracy that must be guaranteed by means of legislative requirements. This demand is, in the context of a common market such as the European Union’s, more than justified.
This view is damaged by the Council common position’s containing an ‘optionality clause’, which would allow Member States to decide what instruments must be subject to regulation, thereby encouraging the retention of a dual system consisting of a regulated part and an unregulated part. I fully agree with the rapporteur when he states that ‘if intra-Community trade considerations are taken into account, then national legislation should not
be incompatible with each other, nor with EC legislation’.
Consequently, as the rapporteur points out, only by making this clause meet certain general requirements and by introducing a transitional period in which Member States can phase out this clause will we be able to achieve the harmonisation we wish to see."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples