Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-057"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-06-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Food Authority2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010612.3.2-057"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-06-12-Speech-2-0582
lpv:speaker	lp:Philip Bushill-matthews2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, in his eloquent introduction the rapporteur referred to the importance of focus and reasserted the importance of the word "safety" being in the title of this authority, which I very much support. I would like to stress a different word in the title and that is the word "authority", because it is vital that this is a body to which the rest of the EU can look up. That is why I tabled an amendment in committee about the location of this new authority, saying that "in order to encourage respect for EU law, it should only be located in a country within the top half of Member States in terms of the fewest cases outstanding in the ECJ for alleged breaches of EU law". This went through committee without opposition and I am surprised and a little disappointed that some colleagues today should be upset about this amendment. The point is that certain countries vote for EU laws and then quite simply ignore them. This hypocrisy has to stop. By voting through this amendment now as part of Amendment No 188, Parliament would make clear that such Member States could not expect the benefits of hosting such new agencies if they are not prepared to exercise their responsibilities. This is not proposed out of malice. This is not proposed out of mischief. It is proposed out of principle. European agencies are there to be upholders of EU law and to be an example to others, to command respect and inspire confidence. This role would be undermined if the Member States themselves are not seen to be champions of the EU laws they are supposed to uphold. We have a chance today, and in the vote tomorrow, to give a very clear signal. What signal do we want to give? Do we want to say that upholding EU laws does not matter or do we want to say it actually matters a very great deal? I urge the House to give a very clear signal, a very positive signal, to vote "yes" to this amendment and for this vote to be clear and unambiguous."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph