7 March 2005 -- The Council Presidency today declared the software agreement of 18 May 2004 to have been adopted, in violation of the procedural rules and in spite of the evident lack of a qualified majority of member states and the requests of several states to reopen negotiations.
Report
* Cyprus submitted a written declaration at the start of the Council session
* Poland, Denmark, Portugal and others (not specified) asked for a B item (discussion point)
* The Luxembourg presidency claimed this was not possible due to procedural reasons, and that this would have undermined the whole process -> it would stay on the list of A-items
* Luxembourg then gave a long statement regarding how the EP still gets a chance in second reading, the importance of avoiding legal uncertainty etc.
* Denmark said it was disappointed about this, but accepted and submitted a written declaration
* Later on, the list of A items was accepted by the Council
Conclusion
* Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency.
* The objecting countries "forgot" to request removal of the A-item from the agenda. Rule 3.8 would have given any single country the right to have the A-item removed, because the Luxemburg presidency had failed to insert it more than 14 days earlier. It is difficult to believe that they were not aware of this possibility.
* This is a very sad day for democracy, and casts a very dark shadow over the European Constitution, which will give the Council even more power.
[^] # Re: Voir le communiqué
Posté par fleny68 . En réponse au journal Brevet logiciel : le live. Évalué à 2.
Report
* Cyprus submitted a written declaration at the start of the Council session
* Poland, Denmark, Portugal and others (not specified) asked for a B item (discussion point)
* The Luxembourg presidency claimed this was not possible due to procedural reasons, and that this would have undermined the whole process -> it would stay on the list of A-items
* Luxembourg then gave a long statement regarding how the EP still gets a chance in second reading, the importance of avoiding legal uncertainty etc.
* Denmark said it was disappointed about this, but accepted and submitted a written declaration
* Later on, the list of A items was accepted by the Council
Conclusion
* Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency.
* The objecting countries "forgot" to request removal of the A-item from the agenda. Rule 3.8 would have given any single country the right to have the A-item removed, because the Luxemburg presidency had failed to insert it more than 14 days earlier. It is difficult to believe that they were not aware of this possibility.
* This is a very sad day for democracy, and casts a very dark shadow over the European Constitution, which will give the Council even more power.
Enregistrement du débat:
http://mm.ffii.org/ConsAudio050307En(...)