It didn't feel like much was doing this week on the run up, but then Practical Law published a note last night to say ECON had been tampering with the Omnibus II text. Bearing in mind there is at least one notable dissenter on the existing Omnibus II compromise within ECON, it would be nice to see exactly what ECON have tabled.
 |
| EU Transparency - just add oil |
I have been onto the ECON site, and ferreted through the agendas and publications from their last few meetings, but have found nothing (for "amendments", I figured this was the most likely source, but I have come up with nothing). I find the more you look for paperwork in EU institution websites, the less you find - as transparent as a tar-soaked binbag, and more's the pity.
One thing is for sure - the deadline for tabling amendments was lunchtime on Wednesday (item 1), so whatever was sent must have got there by then. We can also see that a "rule 142" special has been added to the Plenary agenda, presumably to help shoe-horn a vote through if the debate gets a little fractious.
That said, in IMD2 we have recently seen a piece of financial services legislation get bounced out of Plenary and back to trilogue regardless of the forthcoming Parliamentary elections. Will "rule 142" come to the rescue, or will we be kissing 2016 goodbye at lunchtime on Tuesday?
The draft text included in the agenda papers appears to be different from the November draft. Not sure if this is substantive or simply re-ordering text yet.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2012-0077+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Looks like it is pretty benign, they'll be voting on the trilogue text (which will presumably secure the necessary majority), and blowing out a cheeky last minute exemption attempt. What could go wrong!
Deletehttp://www.solvencyiiwire.com/solvency-ii-news-one-amendment-tabled-ahead-omnibus-ii-vote/139916
Allan, could you please tell me where can I find Omnibus II text, the most recent version which was discussed this Tuesday in the Parliament?
DeleteOndra
Of course, it is available inside the blog post above - anything in red is a hyperlink, so you can just click on the text with "Omnibus II" to get to it.
ReplyDeleteTo make it easier, I have posted the pdf link below
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0008:FIN:EN:PDF
Sure, I am aware of hyperlinks. But what about this version of Omnibus II:
Deletehttp://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST+16330+2013+INIT
It is not exactly the same as you posted above.?
That's right - draft EU law requires approval by the Parliament of the EU and the Council of the EU. You have posted the link to the compromise text from the Council's web portal, I have posted it from Parliament's. Council will not vote on it until June I think, but that will almost certainly be a "Yes" vote.
DeleteThanks Allan. I wish I had your knowledge about EU law-making processes.
DeleteLet me ask you one more question. I know it is not clever one, but when council approves draft I posted, is Parliament able to response somehow to amendments made by Council?
It is not really important in this context - the text was agreed by Parliament, Council and Commission together in the trilogue negotiations which concluded in November 2013. On that basis, an amendment is very unlikely.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically, if the Council disagrees, they will send the text back to Parliament and explain their own position, which will start a second lap of amendment activity, or will see the legislation rejected.
Well, now I am little bit lost here.
DeleteWe have two versions of OMDII directive. Fist one, you have posted above - taken from Parliament´s website and discussed this Thusday, I posted version from Council´s website - I thought that this version was agreed on trilogue meeting on November last year. So, why Parliament approved OMDII Parliament version and not the version which trialogue agreed on?
Trilogue is informal - the text was released publicly in November after all parties came to an agreement at those informal trilogue meetings, but they did not constitute formal acceptance of the text.
DeleteThat text did not change between its November publication and the formal Parliamentary vote on Tuesday of this week. The two links may have a different heading and logo on the documents, but that is all!
Regardless of the link you use, it is that precise text which was accpeted on Tuesday, and will go on to be accepted/rejected at a Council meeting in the near future. Two differently formatted documents yes, but both containing the same text.
You should start reading from page 7 of the Parliamentary doc, and Page 2 of the Council doc in order to start from the same position.
I suspect I can't do much better than that to clarify, so I hope that helps.
Your explanations are great, no doubt about it, and I am very graetful. I do not know what is wrong with me, but I still see differences between these two OMDII versions, look for instance at the page 27 of Council version and on the page 15 of the Parliament version. Article 2 is placed there. I see differences - e.g. Council version starts with "Article 13 amendment", this amendment is not in Parliament version!
DeleteRather than look backwards (this post was of course before the vote), you might find it more useful to look forwards. The document at this location is the text adopted by the Parliament on 11th March. It is this text which will be voted on by the Council, and no other.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_adoptes/provisoire/2014/03-11/P7_TA-PROV(2014)03-11(PAR02)_EN.doc
You are welcome to compare and contrast against earlier versions, but you'll get very little out of it other than sore eyes!