Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080924.33.3-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I will start with Ignalina, because I have talked about this issue many times.
During the accession negotiations it was agreed by Lithuania and the negotiating parties – the other Member States – that because of safety concerns it should be closed by the end of 2009. This Treaty is primary law and it is ratified by all Member States. The Commission is not part of this process. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaty and its role is really to see that the law is being observed.
Therefore I cannot give you any positive news about any change of position, because the Commission position is decided by the Treaty. What could be done? I believe that in the Treaty there are also general provisions for support for Lithuania’s transformations in the energy sector – an overall package, if I am not mistaken, of EUR 1.3 billion, and this should address areas that could strengthen the supply of energy resources to Lithuania, by strengthening interconnections, by financing energy efficiency measures, by financing alternative supplies. So that is the way to go, but, at least in my opinion, there is no way in which the Treaty could be changed, because only an intergovernmental conference and ratification can change a primary law of the European Union.
As for Mochovce, in the Commission’s opinion it is actually the same question as for Ignalina – it is not a different approach. But, for Mochovce, we analysed the situation, and in today’s world there are particular requirements for new challenges we face. We have also seen not only safety but security concerns where aircraft could be used to target nuclear installations. The technology proposed for the new reactors did not sufficiently address this issue. That is why we asked the operator, together with the Slovak nuclear energy control authorities, to take some supplementary measures that would guarantee that, even if a nuclear power plant was targeted in this way, it would sustain no permanent damage."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples