Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-221"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Monitoring the application of Community law (2003-2004) - Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity - The implementation consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force - Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060404.22.2-221"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-04-Speech-2-2222
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2006-09-26)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2004-07-20--2006-09-26)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 substitute; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2006-09-26)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 substitute; INTA (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2006-09-26)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2006-09-26)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I do not think that this debate can be reduced to a debate on the quality of legislation. The actual quantity of EU legislation must also be debated. The fact is that the number of EU laws has risen dramatically in recent years, and the EU is now legislating in a host of new areas. At the same time, it is extremely unusual for the EU to give its right of decision-making back to Member States or to repeal legislation. The combination of a very large quantity of legislation and the deficient quality of such legislation makes for a lack of clarity and makes it difficult to implement legislation in practice. Where quality is concerned, there is a lot that can now already be done, and the reports contain proposals for doing these things. Out-of-date legislation can be repealed. Other legislation can be simplified, and some can be merged and consolidated. All that is fine, but another way of approaching legislative work is also required. In determining the direction to be taken by legislation, we need to focus more on objectives and less on detail, and we need to give the Member States greater freedom to choose how they are to pursue the objectives set. Impact analyses are fine, but it is not always so easy to measure what we want to measure. More often than not, it is simpler to measure straightforward economic factors than, for example, environmental factors. We had this debate in connection with the debate on the chemicals policy, REACH. It was easy to measure a company’s costs, but difficult to measure the huge benefits in terms of public health and reduced human suffering of there being fewer diseases. This means that there is a need to be rather careful in this area. If there is a real desire to simplify matters, the number of EU laws must be reduced, and the area that is absolutely the most overregulated is agricultural policy, where most matters could be returned to Member State level and thousands of laws could be abolished. A number of speakers refer to the European Constitution. The fact is, it would have made these problems worse by increasing the EU’s power and making it easier for the EU to appropriate new legislative powers and to be able to legislate in areas in which it really ought not to get involved. We should therefore thank the Dutch and French voters now as well."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph