Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-104"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Modernising company law and enhancing corporate governance2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040419.8.1-104"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-04-19-Speech-1-1052
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Ghilardotti for her excellent work in committee in writing this report. At the same time, I would like to thank Mr Winter’s committee and the European Commission for this most excellent action plan. It is a very moderate and purposeful document, which quite deliberately does not try to do too much. I do not think we need any European corporate governance codes, it is quite sufficient if activities are sensibly coordinated and harmonised in the Member States. It is obvious that our systems of company law differ greatly and that harmonisation has not progressed very far as yet. A number of very important directives, like the fifth, have been filed away by the Council and never seen the light of day again. Against this background, it is of course right not to want to go ahead with a European corporate governance code, because it will not work without a common, harmonised system of company law. That is why I believe, and the Ghilardotti report confirms it, that the Commission has presented a very good paper here and a good action plan over all. There were of course some differences of opinion between the political groups in the internal debate in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I want to make clear, however, that these were not differences of principle, but differences over how things are formulated and the amount of detail gone into. For example, Mrs Ghilardotti made a number of proposals, in particular for including trade union staff and social rights in the report. My group took the view that we should not do so in detail, because this is a paper about the company law action plan and not a social report or a social paper. That is why, in our group, we quite deliberately confined ourselves to a general statement on the social reasons for restricting property rights, and we believe that is sufficient and that there is no need for other social aspects to be mentioned in this report. In all other respects, we believe this is a good report. With one amendment, we as a group will be voting for this report as it emerged from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph