Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.7.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commission President, ladies and gentlemen, with an annual strategy we have the choice of two paths. The first would be maximum clarity and consistency between statements and financial action. This would be particularly appropriate in an election year, because we are indeed promising that we will be – I quote –‘Putting the Citizen First’. Citizens are entitled to clarity.
The Commission, however, has unfortunately chosen the second path instead, namely to remain as general as possible in order to cover up opposition. First of all the context itself is interesting. We have to expect that the Treaty of Lisbon will be implemented. We are in an election year and we are in a year in which Europe has also very extensively committed itself internationally to climate protection. Unfortunately, words have so far been followed by far too few actions and this has not been made sufficiently clear in strategy either.
If we remain as hesitant about practical measures as we are about car emissions, for instance, then Europe’s credibility is at stake and we cannot afford this in the long run at international level in debates with our partners on the subject of climate protection. This is a negative example of our yielding to major lobbies, as with the implementation of the emissions trading system in air traffic, where we have also acted too hesitantly and not energetically enough and have therefore not managed to introduce the necessary measures for reducing climate damage caused by air traffic with the required efficiency.
There is also a conflict between the ambitious targets and the actual funding of research. When we talk on the one hand about new sources of energy, but on the other hand about still assigning the lion’s share of research funds to nuclear power, to the nuclear economy, this conflict cannot be resolved, nor should we then expect any sustainable solution, because there are no opportunities here whatsoever for investing in a truly concerted manner.
What I think this strategy lacks is a clear commitment to implementing Community law in the Member States. There are far too few mechanisms here; there is far too little regard for the law. In fact, the opposite is true: we are developing new plans before the old ones have been implemented. Here I would simply refer you back to the energy action plan.
If citizens are so important to us, as you rightly stress, then their grievances, among other things, as well as the new opportunity for a referendum, must be the focus of our attention in this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples