Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.5.2-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we shall vote in favour of the GUE/NGL Group resolution because it denounces Total-Fina’s responsibility in this ecological disaster and I endorse the proposal that flags of convenience and the use of superannuated vessels should be prohibited, or that double hulls should be mandatory for oil tankers. I shall only add that it would be the least that Total could do to compensate for the direct and indirect damage caused by the oil slick. How can we stop similar disasters occurring in future if we do not institute draconian measures against the major oil corporations, and indeed many others who, in order to make more profit, take the risk of making the world uninhabitable? How is it possible not to be outraged when a bank refuses to divulge the names of the Erika’s owners on the grounds of professional confidentiality, without governments reacting? The crux of the problem is that all governments, and indeed all the European institutions, acknowledge the right of major corporations such as Total-Fina and its ilk to maximise profits whether it be harmful to their employees or to the environment. They accept the professional confidentiality of business and banks, even though this same confidentiality serves to conceal what are essentially criminal actions. In these circumstances, even the best resolutions will remain little more than appeals to principle which are powerless to limit the great corporations’ capacity to cause damage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples