10 Amendments of Andrew DUFF related to 2013/2077(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that, while the economic and financial crises call for better coordination of policies in a range of domains, it is also essential to maintain a clear understanding of the division of competences in the European Union system of multi-level governance, and to take decisions at the most appropriate level and as close as possible to the citizens;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and Protocol No 2, are of a general and fundamental nature, binding the institutions in their entire activity with the sole exception that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply in those rare areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Union;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that Protocol 2 provides national parliaments with the formal opportunity to advise the EU legislature about whether a new draft law meets the test of subsidiarity whereby its objectives can by reason of their scale or effects be better achieved at Union rather than at the level of the member states;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that the Member States’ parliaments are showing an ever greater interest in the proper application of these principles by the institutions of the Union. This is illustrated by the fact that in 2011 the European Parliament received 77 reasoned opinions claiming that a draft legislative act did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and 523 other contributions criticising inter alia non- respect of the principle of proportionalityon the merit of a draft law, whereas the respective figures for 2010 were 41 and 299;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RegretObserves that the Commission received only a small number of parliamentary questions (32 out of more than 12 000) in 2011 on issues relating to compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and encourages its Members to make more use of this tool of parliamentary scrutiny;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the fact that in 2011 the Commission received 64 reasoned opinions within the meaning of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which represents a considerable increase in comparison to 2010; draws attention however to the factNotes, however, that no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow or orange card procedures’ under the Protocol; (Move to Paragraph 3a (new))
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that there is growing concern in some Member States such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands about the European Union institutions interfering in too many domestic issuesabout the intrusiveness of EU law into issues that, for reason of their proportion, might best be left to Member States; commends, therefore, President Barroso's statement in his State of the Union speech that the EU needs to be 'big on big things and smaller on smaller things'.