Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.5.3-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let us make the most of a good thing. For once, the Commission is showing appreciation of the daily lives of European citizens. Even so, twenty-one years after the sinking of the
the Commission is finally taking action and proposes to improve and speed up the payment of compensation to victims. This is the objective behind setting up the COPE Fund, an objective which has my unbridled approval, all the more so because I am an MEP for the Loire Atlantique region, the
in France which has been affected the most by the
disaster and where tourism plays an important part. This economic and ecological disaster has placed many businesses in difficulties, caused unemployment and has polluted our environment. The irony is that it is the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that is dragging its feet.
Committee members from both the right and the left voted in favour of amendments on increasing the COPE Fund for substances other than oil, and even though these amendments are praiseworthy, they will cause an unavoidable delay – I am sorry but this is what will happen – in setting up the Fund and therefore in compensating the victims properly. This strategy is more than debatable, since it is based on conventions that are not yet ratified and it might even scupper this eagerly awaited measure. These amendments therefore seem tainted and absurd. This is a choice that we will eventually have to explain to those affected by the disaster who are on the verge of bankruptcy and to the municipalities that have put an enormous effort into cleaning up the coastline and which are awaiting appropriate compensation. I believe it is irresponsible to give a demagogical speech, ruling out any extra compensation. I think it would be much more sensible to push this through quickly and to achieve practical results.
That is the reason why we will be voting against these amendments, so that the original proposal – the most suitable one for properly compensating those affected by this disaster – is restored."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples