Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.13.3-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to say that, at this second reading, the parties have worked to bring their positions closer together. And although the Council and the Commission have made an effort to accept the many amendments from our first reading, I think that we can now say that it is Parliament that has made the effort to try to find, and reach agreement on, common positions. In this regard, the role of Mrs Myller deserves a special mention.
I hope that this scheme of management can be implemented.
We think that this is a reasonable programme that allows the Commission to work, makes it possible to legislate and allows States to be flexible within viable programmes, and for this reason we feel that we must support it. This is an appropriate framework for combining the development of European communities in a pivotal policy of sustainable development and I think that it is up to the task. If carried out in this way, it should be clear in conciliation that certain areas are subject to the principle of subsidiarity.
I would also like to talk about principles. The desire to see all methods used everywhere and to implement a uniform policy in all States runs counter to the principle of sustainability and belongs to the globalist mindset. It is very easy to attack globalisation when talking about the economy yet not to want to call imposing the same rules on the whole world globalisation. Social principles, technological viability and the context in which methods are applied are all of great importance to sustainability; the first principle of sustainability is to know how to combine general principles with the imposed rules to suit the needs of each community, each location, each climate and each context.
We must be sufficiently generous of spirit to give those in government the freedom to impose their own rules, something that we shall also continue to do, and to adapt them as they see fit.
Furthermore, we support a scientific policy and feel that the function of the Popular Party and of Parliament, in this case, is to support the Council and the Commission because codecision is not only Parliament’s right, but also a responsibility that should be used to help governments. For this reason, for example, we respect the dates of all these agreements that the Commission and the Council are to conclude with other European countries. We need to be serious in this regard and support this policy that has required such efforts to produce.
We support the thematic strategies and a more scientific policy precisely because this means adapting to the current state of affairs, adapting to the situation of a particular State, sector and to the issue at hand. We have to assess whether suitably adapted and applicable technologies exist, for in many instances, due to the climate, particular conditions, or size of a company, for example, technologies can differ. The results, however, should be the same.
Therefore, we support the scientific nature and the study of the economic and social impacts that the programme will have, because without social principles, there can be no sustainability. For this very reason we are not in favour of simply revising subsidies, that is to say, of a target date being fixed whatever the subsidy may be, and this is particularly the case for specific sectors that have had to close due to measures dictated by the Commission, which has imposed laws upon them – such as in the coal sector, for example – that are now facing the problem of some criteria being applied more strictly than others.
Let us first define the criteria for negative subsidies and take account of the fact that five years is not a sufficient amount of time for a generation to recover nor for certain deprived areas to regenerate.
Moreover, we reject the principle of substitution, because it offers no guarantees to industry, to the citizens, or to society, and lends itself to a very free interpretation by certain sectors, countries, civil servants or experts which may lead to the establishment of measures that are damaging to society and that have no legal guarantee. And the principle of legal guarantee is inherent to the Rule of Law."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples