Mr Vertemati's Amendment No 10 is already covered in Amendment No 7 and is thus superfluous.

As this amendment and amendment 8 were repetitive in their form and content, they were examined together.

I am absolutely against Amendment No 7.

I accept amendment No 35.

In the common position the Council rejected Amendment No 8, but the Commission made a statement in which it announced that it would adopt the first part of the amendment.

Therefore, Mr President, we are putting forward these proposals on the basis of unanimity and not on the basis of special majority.

It is thanks to that spirit, thanks to that agreement, thanks to the goodwill

We also accept amendment No 80.

Amendment No 5 is acceptable.

Under these circumstances several Members, notably members of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, have proposed another amendment Amendment No 4 to Article 1.

Noone is excluded, everyone will be able to reap the benefits.

Discussions with the Commission have shown that there is a positive attitude to the idea.

Myself, I have nothing against amendment No 30.

As this amendment introduces a definition which is largely taken up by Amendment 17 which the Commission also accepted, the Commission has decided to concentrate both within a separate Article, namely Article 5.

We see this as the logical development of the Single European Marker, since exchange and transaction costs are just as much barriers to freedom of trade as differing technical standards, or incompatible health and safety regulations.

Substantial efforts will, however, be necessary to reduce the gap between the objectives set out in the directive and reality.

Revision and amendment

Amendment and revision

It was because of this that our group wanted to tble an amendment.

Amendment No 1 is entirely acceptable.

Membership of political groups see Minutes.

Another point which we could not allow is amendment 31 referring to equal remuneration.

I am quite astonished by all the deletion called for by amendment No 40.

Our community voted against this amendment.

The other proposal is the tenth directive on crossfrontier mergers between jointstock companies which the Commission presented in 1985 and which has been before Parliament since then without Parliament having given its opinion.

In opting for this particular procedure the Council obviously took account of the arguments for and against it.

The First Amendment passed the House and Senate with almost no recorded debate, complicating future discussion of the Amendment's intent.

Where a European Parliament amendment is not confirmed, the position agreed in the Conciliation committee on the budget heading which is the subject of the amendment shall be retained.

Amendment No 4 the commission agrees.

Next, we must play our part in the

Commission position at debate The Commission rejected the amendment. (Without debate)

We come now to the famous compromise amendment.

Similarly, I would have difficulty with Amendment No 3.

In Amendment No 50 we ask for provisional author ization to be prohibited.

3, the Commission again expresses its inability to understand the reason underlying the first part of the amendment, in particular this reference to the 1989 budget.

With that one clarification, we will vote for the report and the resolution.

The Thirteenth Amendment freed all Negro slaves.

It is important.

It is to be hoped therefore that the Visser amendment will be accepted.

I also agree with Amendment No 6.

On Amendment No 12 I add a note of caution.

That is a frontier which is entirely unpoliced and that law is, I suggest to you, completely unenforceable.

That is why 1 cannot accept Amendment No 52.

I am against Amendment No 6 to Article 12(4).

We would have liked a better approach, but there can be no question of getting into a committology war today over German unification.