Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-330"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:National emission ceilings for pollutants2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010313.18.2-330"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-13-Speech-2-3312
lpv:speaker	lp:Chris Davies2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, at first reading the Liberal Group gave its support to the Commission's proposals. We want to see a significant reduction in air pollution within a period of time that reflects the serious environmental problems we face. The Commission argued that the economic benefits would far outweigh the costs involved, but Member States dissented and said that they could not go beyond the targets agreed at the Gothenburg Protocol. Parliament was right, then, to back the Commission. I am pleased that in negotiation the Commission was able to overcome Member States' resistance, make some progress and secure more ambitious targets. But at second reading we are in a rather different position. The Commission has said that it has made a firm agreement with the Council and is sticking to it. It will go no further, it says. It will not support the amendments tabled by the PPE-DE or the Socialist Group. I would like Member States to be more ambitious. But at first reading, Parliament supported proposals based on a Commission model which I find fiendishly complicated. In the absence of the Commission's support now, I do not see how we, as legislators, not technical experts, can propose more ambitious targets for individual countries unless we pull figures out of the air, which seems to me a rather poor and amateurish way of making law. So I have accepted that this is as far as we can go for the time being. But I am also aware that this is a poker game and I am a rotten poker player. It may be that Member States have cards up their sleeves which they are prepared to offer up if pushed in conciliation. It may be that the Commissioner secretly wishes Parliament to pursue its original agenda. If that proves to be the case then I have misread the game. I am waiting with interest to hear from the Commissioner whether she has been keeping cards close to her chest or whether her public position remains the same."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Davies (ELDR )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph