Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-15-Speech-3-642"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20101215.32.3-642"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, it is only about one year since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which envisages considerable changes in the delegation of powers by the European Parliament and Council to the Commission. Finally, since my time is over, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their flexibility in the negotiations. I understand that it was very difficult to get an agreement in Council. I think this is the deal which Parliament wanted and this deal can be satisfying for all Members, especially because this is not only about the text we are discussing now, but we expect both the Commission and Council to take part in the common understanding concerning these important issues. We also expect declarations which make clear that there is a clear commitment from the Commission for the alignment of the remaining part of the acquis communautaire. This text attached to my report should be satisfying for all Members of this Parliament. A few months ago in this Parliament, we discussed my report about delegated acts. Delegated acts are when Parliament and Council delegate powers, but from now on, compared to the previous situation, we can take them back any time. We can set a deadline, we can change and we can veto if the Commission is not in line with what the legislator wanted. In the case of the present regulation we are discussing based on Article 291 of the Treaty, we are speaking about implementing acts. In the case of implementing acts, the situation is a bit different. Here, it is the Member States which exercise their rights on how to implement the different legislation of the European Union. So there is a clear difference. The new regulation and the new system of delegated acts gives us very wide powers. From Parliament’s point of view, it changes our influence considerably, especially in certain areas of legislation. However, in the field of implementation, we have the right as Parliament, as legislator, to regulate how the implementation procedure for the Member State should go. I think Parliament was right after long negotiations to take the position that we would like to confirm and get clear commitments from both the Council and the Commission that Parliament’s rights are met. After very long negotiations, we have made very serious progress in this area which has influence and an effect not only – and particularly not only – in the area of implementing acts, but also on delegated acts. Even in the case of implementing acts, Parliament got and kept the right of scrutiny which means that, on the basis of the agreement with the other institutions, we have a procedure which we can apply. My first priority was that we could keep these important positions. There is also another issue here, which is that there are other ongoing discussions in this Parliament represented by other committees – especially the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs – and also between Parliament and Council on the legislation concerning financial instruments and whether and how they should be regulated. My goal in this framework was that this regulation should not prejudge this discussion. We want to help our colleagues who are fighting our position in an important discussion with the Council so that we can finally end up with the cooperation of the Council."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph