Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.7.3-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We are disappointed by the Council’s common position on this proposal for a framework directive. It is minimalist on a number of points, especially with regard to the dates of entry into force of far too many provisions and the number of, and conditions for, implementing the derogations.
However, the main problem is with the definition of the objective which the European Union wishes to pursue with this text. The objective is of course to create, first and foremost, a clear general framework which will allow the law in this area to be simplified. However the Union should be seeking, beyond that, to improve the quality of both surface and groundwater. Public health and the supply of drinking water are at stake, as are biological quality and diversity and the conservation of rural areas and species. From this point of view, the common position is weak.
I should like to see our Parliament defend a more ambitious position than the Council’s position, but I should also like that position to be equally credible.
The “zero input” and “zero pollution” requirement, including for substances naturally present in water, is not realistic. I am not one of those MEPs who thinks that it is essential to adopt “extremist” amendments at second reading with the sole aim of gaining room for manoeuvre in preparation for negotiations with the Council of Ministers. On the contrary, I object to this systematically applied strategy. It damages Parliament. Our messages to our citizens and to the Council are muddled and lack credibility. Overly strict, unrealistic environmental objectives will not be applied because they are unattainable. Is that the message we want to send out?
There is one other specific point which is dear to me: Member States should be able, if they so wish, to set up trans-national water transfers. This type of project complies with the principle of regional cohesion and solidarity, which we have always defended, and, as such, should enjoy the widespread support of the European Union in the context of the promotion of trans-European networks and regional policy (through the Structural Funds). I would like to remind the House that we adopted an own initiative report on the technical feasibility of trans-European water networks two years ago and I would be most obliged if the European Commission could shortly tell Parliament what action it has taken on that report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples