Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-055"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cocoa and chocolate products2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.4.2-055"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-0562
lpv:speaker	lp:Marianne Thyssen2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christelijke Volkspartij (1999-07-20--2001-09-30)3 member; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, chocolate was the topic of a stormy debate at first reading. This was justified and not without results. Justified because the original proposal focused exclusively on the internal market. The Commission only took a passing interest in the quality of the product and had no consideration whatsoever for the ethical and legal obligations we have towards developing countries. The discussion was not without results either. Upon serious analysis of the common position, it has to be said that democracy works. We did not sit passively on the fence, muttering under our breath, but took a pro-active approach in tabling amendments. Should we assent to other legislation? Fine, if that is what is to be done, but could we do so on our terms, please. We only wanted tropical fats; the common position provides an exhaustive list of them. We wanted double labelling, the common position has given it to us, only it would have been preferable to have the additional designation on the front of the packaging. We wanted an impact study. We are getting one, two and a half years after the directive has entered into force. We wanted the Commission to draft an amendment proposal, if need be. Well now, the Commission will need to do so and we can then amend it again if necessary. We did not want comitology for essential amendments. We are getting codecision. And we asked for more precise measuring methods; in my opinion, the Ispra research institute has acquitted itself of this task quite admirably. Many of us in this House were displeased with the Commission proposal. We were unable to ban fats other than cocoa, but we managed to condition their use in such a way that developing countries are actually finding the present text to be acceptable and that quality chocolate containing cocoa only can be distinguished from other chocolate. Mr President, as shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE Group, I am proud of the fact that virtually all amendments from first reading, which have impacted so heavily on the common position, are the product of our own hands. As such, no more amendments have been submitted on behalf of the PPE-DE, but some of my colleagues will support amendments submitted by others, especially since it is our amendments from first reading which are being copied. Even if none of the amendments survive, the result is still worth seeing. I would like to finish off with the following thought. In the debate on chocolate, the word ethics was used more than once. To me, ethical behaviour also implies that, if this House scored a victory, we should be able to say so and underline this. If a victory is achieved, one should be able to enjoy it too. Perhaps we ought to learn to do this one day."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph