Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-13-Speech-2-553-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110913.41.2-553-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for their speeches in this debate. I would also like to give my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their contributions.
I believe that a few questions remained unanswered during the course of the answer session. Mr Šefčovič, you were opposed to a proposal for codification, which I am in favour of in my report. This is not about the procedure, but about the first phase, so to speak. We need to be completely clear about that. In 2002, the Commission issued a communication containing clear deadlines. This was the communication about the relationship with complainants, which already included this information. Why can this not be implemented? I very much regret this. I would like to ask you to reconsider your attitude, because this proposal does not interfere in any way with the Commission’s powers.
You have spoken out in praise of the improved cooperation with the Member States. That is right and proper. However, this cannot, of course, replace implementation monitoring, because otherwise we will come down to the level of goodwill and friendship, which is definitely not appropriate for the legal system.
There is still an imbalance when it comes to the infringement procedure. There is much less emphasis on protecting the environment than there is on security, for example. Reminders are sent out immediately in the case of security, but the deadlines are extended for breaches of regulations on fine particles.
I would like to make one thing clear with regard to the reduction in red tape, which everyone always supports. It is important for us to avoid excessive bureaucracy. That is the right thing to do. However, this is generally used by the Member States as an excuse for abolishing environmental legislation. If that is the objective and if the Commission supports this, you will not have my agreement. That would be a violation of the European projects, which are what the citizens of Europe value and appreciate about the European Union. They often believe these projects to be better than what is happening in their own countries. We cannot put this at risk."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples