Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-277"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.8.3-277"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I must say that, listening to them, I increasingly admire our Austrian fellow Members of all political persuasions. I admire their tenacity, and their rhetorical ability in presenting the unpresentable, alas. I refer to a battle – the reasons for which I understand – which is entirely national, and has nothing to do with Europe, which on the other hand, a battle for the protection of the environment, for the protection of Europe does. Mr Swoboda, you asked what we should make a priority. I think we should give priority to the credibility of the European Union, to the fact that, when we go to our countries and talk to our citizens, perhaps asking them for sacrifices in various sectors, we need to be able to say that we are asking for these sacrifices because there is a higher common good, called Europe, called a community of rights, called freedom of movement, freedom of trade and the whole series of common values that we are putting in place. If, however, we cannot go with this peace of mind and must then tell our fellow citizens that in Europe some are in Division One, and some are in Division Two, then it all gets difficult and it is the credibility of the European institution which will collapse.
The problem of living in a healthy, compatible environment is shared by all the citizens of Europe, not just Austrian citizens. I too regret that the level of emissions is unacceptable, but I do not understand why it should be excellent for Austrian citizens, when the problem appears to be completely irrelevant for other citizens. So, my friends, Mrs De Palacio, I do not want there to be any misunderstandings over one point: we have been fast at second reading not just because we want to go to conciliation quickly – although this was one reason too, of course – but because Parliament and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are happy with the first reading: we have nothing to change; that is our proposal – which is already a compromise proposal – and the sooner the Council realises this, the sooner we will, perhaps, manage to reach a practicable result. Nobody is labouring under the illusion that we can move a long way from that proposal: we cannot move away from it at all. It must be clear that the scheme will end, that the derogations will end, that the rule of law will be restored, after which we will seek for the whole Alpine region, for both sides of the Alps, to establish the precautions which will take us to 2006 by cutting emissions, because this is what we all want, but no one must be under the illusion that we can make anything other than a very few changes. I wanted to say this, not because the Commission, from this point of view, is not well aware of all this, but because it seems that at times the Council was not. I therefore hope that conciliation will offer us deadlines for a rapid end to an affair which we all, I repeat, want to bring to a close, but in accordance with Community law."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples