[geo-discuss] draft of open letter to MEPs

Rufus Pollock 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 [1]):

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!).



[1] http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?PROG=RULES-EP&L=EN&REF=TOC

More information about the geo-discuss mailing list