Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-027"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-12-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transport of animals2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041216.5.4-027"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-12-16-Speech-4-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Dan Jørgensen2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; CONT (2004-09-13--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Socialdemokratiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is no doubt that this is an area that makes a big impression upon the European population. Last year alone, one animal protection organisation collected 500 000 signatures in Denmark, that is to say half a million signatures in a country with only just over five million inhabitants. All the more reason for criticising the way in which this proposal has been hurried through. As a Member of the European Parliament, I could not obtain access to the proposal until a few hours before it was in actual fact adopted. It might well actually have been the case, Commissioner, that if there had been a little more time in which to debate this issue and if there had been a public debate surrounding it in the individual countries of Europe, the ministers would have been rather more amenable. I actually think you should be serious about the statements you have made in this House today. I think you should have the matter put on the agenda again as quickly as possible so that we can have a public debate and so that the politicians and ministers can be put under pressure. The big problem in this case is that we think too much about the internal market. The internal market is of course a splendid and commendable thing but, once in a while, we must also pause and bear some ethical considerations in mind. We are now treating animals as if they were commodities. Animals are not commodities. Animals are living beings and must, of course, be treated as such. I would also question whether the proposal that has now unfortunately become legislation is at all tenable in purely legal terms. In purely legal terms, can there be any defence of Parliament’s being deprived of influence, as it has been? When this legislation is revised, or in other words re-examined, it will be possible to bypass Parliament. As I see it, that alone is a good enough reason for investigating whether this decision is at all sustainable in legal terms."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph