[geo-discuss] draft of open letter to MEPs
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon Mar 13 09:11:47 UTC 2006
Schuyler Erle wrote:
> * On 12-Mar-2006 at 7:10AM PST, Rufus Pollock said:
>>We also suggest that rejection be considered should it prove impossible
>>to remove the obstacles to open access that currently exist in the text.
> Forgive me if I haven't been paying attention, but I had gotten the
> impression that it was not possible for the EU Parliament to actually
> reject INSPIRE at this point? Am I (hopefully) mistaken?
I am not sure on the status of this either. However I am pretty certain
that even if the committee does not introduce the rejection amendment it
can be introduced by others (from ):
Rule 61.1: The committee responsible, a political group or at least
thirty-seven Members may, in writing and before a deadline set by the
President, table a proposal to reject the common position of the
Council. Such a proposal shall require for adoption the votes of a
majority of the component Members of Parliament. A proposal to reject
the common position shall be voted on before voting on any amendments.
Rule 61.2: Notwithstanding a vote by Parliament against the initial
proposal to reject the common position, Parliament may, on the
recommendation of the rapporteur, consider a further proposal for
rejection after voting on the amendments and hearing a statement from
the Commission pursuant to Rule 62(5).
The key question for 61.1 is what the deadline is and whether it is
likely that a party of a group of MEPs would table rejection if the
committee had *not* put it forward. Regarding the deadline: for software
patents the deadline was 1800 a week before the date of the plenary vote
but in this case it may be different. Note also the rejection amendment
is voted *before* voting on any amendments which makes it especially
difficult to pass. It also makes our statement about goinng for
rejection if there is insufficient amending only relevant to the
situation in 61.2 or where it is known in advance that there are
insufficient votes to pass all the necessary amendments (though in that
case why would there be sufficient votes to reject!).
More information about the geo-discuss