Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-197"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.13.3-197"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Myller. She managed to get an excellent report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I have to be honest. The Council proposal is weak, lacks any imagination, any specific goals and is a welter of words. My criticism is also levelled at the four Green Ministers who may have promised progress, but who failed to deliver.
Neither can the proposal as it now stands be used as propaganda material for young people, as Commissioner Wallström stated. This is why it should be binned, and the large majority of my group will support the amendment of the Liberals to reject the common position.
It is the political choice of the two large groups, the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats and the Group of the Party of European Socialists. If they vote against and reject the amendment, they too will be responsible for this weak and empty concoction.
Needless to say, the Greens will support all amendments to improve the proposal. A one per cent reduction in greenhouse gases annually, certification of wood, sustainably-produced and otherwise, the amendment to which the GUE made reference, the European Investment Bank, the chemicals policy along with the substitution principle. Mrs Jackson, I have to get this off my chest. These are not the inspired ramblings of a Green mind, they are existing policy in Denmark and Sweden, and even the new Danish government, that is from the right-wing school of thought, has no intention of changing this policy.
The amendments, which include a legal framework for voluntary agreements between industry and the European Commission, are all sound, but I have very little hope that they will obtain the required 314 votes. This means that, ultimately, the officials of the European Commission will get their way, the same officials who proposed the policy not to present a Sixth Environmental Action Programme under any circumstances. This is why this is a defeat for politics and for European environmental policy. And the key culprit is the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats, prompted by certain officials from the European Commission.
But it is still not too late. Tomorrow, we will vote, and I hope that maybe some of the Christian-Democrats will see sense and will be prepared to vote for a number of sensible amendments, so that maybe we will end up with a conciliation procedure, which will have some substance at least and which will not merely be a welter of words."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples