Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.15.2-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, hearing the debate unfold and watching my colleagues and the clock, I am not sure what I want any more: protected areas for fauna, flora and habitats or protected areas for ecologically minded delegates. At the moment, I am more interested in protected areas for delegates, but that is another matter.
Our question to you, Commissioner, has another purpose. I would have liked to hear your answer first, but you have chosen to speak at the end of the debate. We are discussing something here of which most know the history. The fauna-flora-habitats legislation should have been implemented by 1994 – it is now the year 2000. The European Union list of the relevant nature conservation sites should have been ready in 1998 – it is now the year 2000. The Member States should have notified the Commission of their sites by 1995 – it is now the year 2000. Many Member States, including my own, did not do as required. Germany, for example, implemented the legislation in 1998 instead of 1994 – only four years late. But what does it matter?!
As a result, the European Union list is obviously not ready. And how could it be? Many Member States and many regions have not announced their sites. Now Mr Schnellhardt has even suggested that perhaps we made a mistake with the fauna-flora-habitats directive. Perhaps, Mr Schnellhardt, you are right that it wasn’t totally practical, it wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t quite right. Unfortunately, however, it is not the procedure in the European Union that if you don’t like a piece of legislation you don’t bother observing it.
If that were the case, then there would also be areas and matters which you and I would not like. But we do have this unfortunate system in the European Union – what you call legal certainty. We do have this unfortunate system – it is what you call legislation, which has been adopted in this European Parliament with the consent of the Member States. It must be observed! It might perhaps be a bit too strict and too legalistic, but that’s the way it is: we are living in a European Union with a legal system. Mr Jarzembowski is the one who supports this most of all because he comes from Hamburg which is one of the few regions of Germany to be nominated, along with Berlin, my own area, although as city states we have it particularly easy, I think I can say with some justification.
However, I do not want to pass sentence on Mr Schnellhardt, who comes from one of the new federal states who do not have things quite so good. That is an internal German problem which we will resolve at another time and in another place in the House. Today, Mr President, we are talking about the fact that Europe is losing its countryside and about the fact that Europe must observe legal certainty.
I shall come to my final point: Commissioner, it you do not succeed in going to the European Court of Justice and bringing to account those Member States which are not properly implementing legislation, you will lose your authority and your legitimacy. You must do it! If you think the legislation is no good, let us revise it. If you think it is sound, go to the European Court of Justice, and be quick about it!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples