Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-024"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.1.4-024"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, this debate is not a technical debate, contrary to what we may think. It has become eminently political. Yesterday we honoured our institution with a political debate. Today, if 314 Members of Parliament yield to the strength of the lobbying of some car manufacturers, we should be doing ourselves dishonour.
In expecting consumers to bear half the cost of the recovery of end-of-life vehicles, as Amendment No 38 stipulates, even though the common position states that all recovery costs should be borne by the manufacturer, Parliament would, for the first time, not be acting as the defender of the rights of the consumers and citizens of Europe, it would be turning into mere sounding box for different lobbies.
We cannot accept this. It would be a precedent which would open the door to all sorts of pressure in many other areas. It would also be the first time that the European Parliament would be weakening a Council position, whereas usually we are complaining that their position is not strong enough. The free recovery system, for example, for old vehicles and raising the percentage to be recycled will increase recycling activities and the number of jobs this generates accordingly. Thus, for the consumer, for the environment and for the new jobs to be created in recycling, the Council’s common position definitely must not be amended. It is, as it stands, perfectly acceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples