Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-30-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020530.2.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Novelli’s original report was rejected because when voting on the amendments we realised that the final text was completely incoherent. On the one hand it had incorporated the positions of those who wished to remove aid to this industry, which is fundamental for energy supply and for social cohesion in our countries, while on the other hand others among us would have liked to go further and have greater certainty about what is going to happen after 2010.
For this reason, the report was rejected in committee and as the chair I was given the task of conducting the necessary negotiations to solve the problem, because we would have been unable to deliver an opinion on the Council’s decision. This was why I contacted Mr Novelli, as he had already worked on this report, and also, out of parliamentary courtesy, I thought it was appropriate to consult him as to whether he wanted to put forward the only text that could receive a consensus, which was the Commission’s text, and Mr Novelli agreed, which I thank him for. He thinks it is a step in the right direction, as do I. He thinks that it goes too far and I do not think that it goes far enough but it is, however, the only possible text, and we therefore think that we should give it majority support and comply with the agreement between the different groups, which is not to adopt any amendments modifying the Commission’s text.
Now the ball will be in the Council’s court and we hope that it will adopt a solution that is in line with the Commission’s proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples