Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-140"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.19991116.8.2-140"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph