Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-27-Speech-3-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050427.12.3-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, ‘transparency’ is a much-used word in Mrs van den Burg’s report, but there is nothing transparent about the great jumble of committees and processes that she also describes. First, a committee of wise men was set up on the regulation of European securities markets. What wisdom did it bestow? A four-level regulatory approach and the creation of two more committees! Then the Commission appointed four expert groups to mark the first step in the action plan review process. That was in October 2003, long before all of the action plan had even been implemented. If that were not enough, there was input from a monitoring group and four other committees.
Who said ‘when in doubt, hold a committee meeting’? Only a report from an EU institution could say with such a straight face that this is a powerful recipe for success, at least in terms of delivering legislation. The EU is very good at churning out laws:
is transparently obvious. However, I have a warning for ordinary people out there in the real world, like those in our visitors’ gallery: it is transparent to me that more regulation is coming, thus there will be more laws to break; there will be more interference in pensions and insurance matters; more European-level supervisory bodies that will override national ones; and more back doors through which the EU intends to interfere in national taxation policy. The report notes the existence of overlapping directives that might lead to contradictory and duplicate requirements. In the real world, this would be seen as a work of fiction, not a serious proposition.
So, the EU confuses itself, but in the confusion, I should like to repeat one transparent certainty: if the EU is the answer, it must have been a very silly question."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples