Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.21.1-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The European Parliament is now dealing with a proposal for revising the Civil Protection Mechanism set up in 2001. There is no doubt that disasters put great strains on the parties affected. Coordinated European civil protection is not, however, the solution to the problem, especially in the form in which it appears in this proposal.
Civil protection in each Member State is funded through taxes. It is up to each State to choose how tax revenue collected from its citizens is to be distributed. This proposal may entail a risk of certain Member States choosing to invest a minimum of resources in national civil protection, relying on other EU countries contributing when a disaster occurs. This problem of free-riding is very serious and is unfair towards people in those countries that choose to have strong civil protection. Where international efforts are concerned, these should be coordinated through OCHA and funded by the Member States and not by the EU.
The Commission's document also talks about rapid reaction forces and about the Member States having to give notice of available resources, including military resources and military capacity, in cases where an affected country requests that type of aid. The June List resolutely objects to these proposals. A country’s military resources are a matter for that particular nation, and it is up to each Member State to decide whether or not such resources should be mobilised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples