Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.5.3-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The issue of the French embargo on British beef, which I brought up during yesterday’s debate on the Olsson report, exemplifies the deeply undemocratic way in which the European institutions operate. The Court of Justice condemned France in law, in the name of a strictly uniform vision of the single market, whilst acknowledging that France may essentially have valid reasons for protecting its population, given the uncertainties surrounding the traceability and labelling of British bovine carcasses. The French Government declared its intention not to apply the Court’s decree and the Commission demonstrated that it was prepared to impose severe penalties upon France.
We are therefore faced with a legal system which forces Member States either to stop implementing the measures that they consider essential for protecting their nation’s public health, or to buy the right to do this. Of course, it is primarily the French Government that is to be held responsible for this situation, having cheerfully transferred food safety to Community jurisdiction by signing the Treaty of Amsterdam. The French Government is now discovering, several months later, the regrettable consequences of taking such a decision so lightly. More generally, however, the Olsson report should have brought into question an entire system that constitutes an attack upon democracy. This is a system that denies a nation the right to take measures which it considers necessary for ensuring public health, even if other nations have a different view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples