Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-443-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.24.3-443-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, this is not the first time that we have tried to establish a stronger common position regarding our external energy relations. I can only concur with Mr Kariņš and his account of the entire process. I can only thank him for his committed, diplomatically adroit presentation on behalf of Parliament, which has produced a successful result.
What is it all about? On the one hand, it is about the fact that we have intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third states that we know are not based 100% on European law, in other words that are not compatible with European law. We do not believe that these agreements were concluded by the Member States because they sought to anger the European Union, but rather because they were pressurised into these agreements by the supplier countries. That is why disclosure is the right way to determine whether agreements between Member States and third countries are based on European law and internal market law – and to change these if this is not the case.
It is a matter of competitive advantages and disadvantages. The playing field is not level when suppliers and the states in which they are established are aware of all agreements, but the Member States only know about their own. Transparency rules can provide a remedy here.
The next matter is the investors. These are generally interested in private investments for networks, for example for gas pipelines. These infrastructural projects require a certain degree of legal clarity. However, if the intergovernmental agreements are not known, the result is uncertainty. Greater transparency in terms of the compatibility of the agreement with European law means that we can prevent nasty surprises, avoid infringement proceedings, establish legal certainty and therefore establish investment incentives.
The compromise now achieved lags somewhat behind what we proposed and what Parliament wanted. This is an important first step, however. Historically speaking, this is the first time that we have a certain European external energy policy. It will no longer be as easy for third parties to play the ‘divide and conquer’ game. All elements in the current proposal, namely the commitment to disclose existing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) that impact on the internal market, the confirmation that the Commission can demand to be allowed to participate in negotiations as an observer and to act in an advisory capacity, and the option of being able, on request, to test in advance the compatibility of negotiated agreements with EU law – all of this establishes clarity sooner, strengthens the European internal market and reinforces the position of the Member States in relation to supplier countries, in other words third countries.
This is what we are now going to implement in the legislation. Again I would like to thank you for your excellent cooperation in Parliament. We shall also examine how this works in practice. The precise monitoring and compliance of our new laws will need to be managed in the coming years. The Commission will see whether we have sufficient instruments for this purpose. If not, we shall present a proposal in a few years for how the issue of external energy policy is to be developed. This is the right and important first step, but no doubt further action will be required. I would like to thank you for your cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples