Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.4.2-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted in favour of the proposal for an amendment whose approval by a majority meant that the European Commission’s proposal was rejected. This really was the best solution, and will spare us a great deal of inconvenience and conflict. It is not so much that I opposed the overall aims set out in the proposal, which do in fact respond to serious current concerns. The problem, however, is that the European Commission was using those concerns to mask an attempt almost to assert its right to interfere directly in managing the Member States’ energy resources and to nurture a desire to affect the market on its own account. True, the rapporteur nevertheless attempted to introduce some ‘damage limitation’: he proposed more realistic transition periods (2007), he left it to the Member States to decide what percentage of stocks should be held by private or public bodies, and he removed the right to intervene if prices rise significantly (that right will apply only during supply crises). After everything that happened in the specialist Parliamentary committee, however, and after the various proposed amendments were tabled, stiffening opposition to the Commission’s ambitions still further, this was a predictable outcome, and a fortunate one, particularly if the principle of subsidiarity is to be respected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples