Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.15.1-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I will start by expressing my gratitude to the rapporteur for the very good report but above all for having taken on board the Committee on Legal Affairs’ opinion to a considerable degree.
I am sure that we are agreed that the wording of the Treaty enables the Commission to withdraw proposals up until such time as the Council has taken up a Common Position, and this state of affairs is unsatisfactory from the legal point of view, in that the Commission could, following the first reading in this House, which can require a great deal of effort – one need only think back to the services directive to realise that – withdraw its proposal, thereby wiping out with one stroke of the pen a great deal of work on the part of this House.
That is why I would like to emphasise the principle of sincere cooperation, to which reference has been made in this context. If the first reading stage, with all the hard work that it entails, has been reached, then the Commission should no longer be able to withdraw its proposals.
The Commission should also respond with greater sensitivity if Parliament requests by a large majority that its proposals be withdrawn. I need only remind the House of the dispute about the software patent directive, where we repeatedly asked the Commission to withdraw a proposal that was disastrous and scarcely worthy of mention. It declined to do so, whereupon this House in any case rejected the proposal by over 500 votes.
I think – and you have yourself just said – that there were a number of inconsistencies in the package of withdrawn proposals that was submitted. The Committee on Legal Affairs attached particular importance to the Associations Statute and to there being European law covering such entities. I am pleased to note your willingness to review this matter and look forward to really new proposals, for the ‘justification’ for this package as having to do with the reduction of bureaucracy and of excessive impositions is certainly not applicable here.
If we want there to be a European law on associations, it is because we want to relax many of the rules and regulations in this area, thereby enabling non-governmental organisations, in particular, to operate more easily across Europe.
I would also like to draw attention to something that the Commission has overlooked. We recommended the withdrawal of certain legislative proposals: not just the software patent directive, but also the mediation directive, and I do not see why other proposals for legislation were withdrawn, but this directive was not. Here too, it is not quite clear in what way the package is balanced, but if you can promise us that closer cooperation with Parliament will result in that changing in future, then we will be happy to take note of that."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples