Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.4.3-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
On this topic the interests of industry continue to clash with those of the consumer and the environment. Most companies no longer oppose the idea that protecting consumers against unsafe products is desirable. In the single European market they are prepared to withdraw products that damage their good reputation. On the other hand, when it is a matter of concrete measures by government, they are quick to complain that these restrict their freedom excessively, and exert pressure on Parliament to reject them. Initially the Commission quite rightly claimed the right to decree a complete export ban on dangerous products. It is madness that companies based in our countries should try to earn money from products that we consider unsafe for European consumers. The Council seriously curbed those powers, probably under pressure from protesting companies who lobby their own national governments to protect the country’s exports. I support the rapporteur in her aim of maintaining those powers and in addition of taking more safety measures before 2003. It is reprehensible that good decisions by Parliament require 314 at second reading and as a result can often not be maintained in the face of opposition by the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples