Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-12-Speech-1-147"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protection of soil - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"cs"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071112.20.1-147"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-12-Speech-1-1482
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Březina2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Křesťanská a demokratická unie - Československá strana lidová (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2007-08-29--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; REGI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work on the proposal in question. Unfortunately, however, I must endorse the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which calls on the committee responsible to propose rejection of the Commission proposal. The reasons cited by the committee are valid and remain so in spite of the substantial changes made to the proposal in the last few months. Soil really does not have any cross-border implications and should therefore remain a competence of the Member States. Therefore, despite the positive changes, this proposal continues to represent a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. As far as proportionality is concerned, adopting such legislation could be seen as a waste of resources. Moreover, it is important to remember that within the EU there are many different soil types, which are used in a variety of ways. It is true that the Directive in question has become what could be described as a flexible framework directive. In addition, as a result of our new philosophy, the Directive is binding as far as the results are concerned, but leaves the decision on the form and method up to the Member States. It is very positive that the existing Member State legislation covering these objectives does not need to be revised. As such, we are genuinely moving towards the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. A positive side effect of this legislation would be the pressure that would be brought to bear on Member States with inadequate soil protection legislation at present, but I am not sure if this is the best way to put pressure on them. After having weighed up all the pros and cons, I believe that it is not necessary to adopt the proposed directive. The Member States can protect their soil on their own. To conclude, I would like to reiterate the words of the French philosopher who said that if a law is not essential it must not be written."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph