Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.5.3-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the stir which the Bouwman report has caused shows quite well the chaos European decision-making finds itself in and what kind of complex compromises are being struck as a result. Parliament was divided between supporters of two different solutions. Eventually, a majority was achieved for one of the solutions, a majority which also encompassed the Group of the European United Left. In normal administrative relations, this decision by Parliament would be final; not so in the European Union. A conciliation procedure had to take place.
This procedure between the Council and Parliament resulted in a compromise which is rather noncommittal as long as it is not accompanied by a Commission statement. This statement explains how the Commission interprets the word “substantial” in Article 8 (1). Substantial appears to mean 30% here, but this cannot be made explicit in the text itself. From the outset, there was a battle between a majority which supported 90% and a minority which was in favour of 0%. This has now resulted in a percentage which is nearer to 0 than 90 and which may not be made public. Everyone is now agreed that ship’s waste and cargo residues can no longer be discharged at sea but there is substantial disagreement about how this ship’s waste is to be collected and, more to the point, how this collection should be funded. Around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, preference was given to funding based on a general levy for each ship. This should prevent anyone from seeking financial gain by not delivering waste at officially designated sites. Around the Mediterranean Sea, however, there was preference for payment according to the waste collected. Instead of developing both systems separately to start with and comparing the respective environmental effects, attempts are now being forced through to arrive at one solution for all. This is prejudicing the northern model. It would be better if, instead of applying an overall EU solution, this matter could be regulated according to which particular sea was involved. Without the European Union, it would have been easier to reach an agreement between groups of separate countries for each sea. In this case, the presence of the European Union is not conducive to finding a joint, cross-border solution. Despite this, my group has voted in favour because this regulation is better than nothing. I hope a review will take place within the next couple of years so that the original intentions of the Bouwman report can be brought to bear."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples