Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.36.2-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, thanks and congratulations to Mrs Doyle, but I think that tomorrow will be a sad day for democracy in the European Parliament.
We are invited to endorse a deal agreed with the Council behind closed doors. We have knowingly thrown overboard our chance to dig away at the Council position through the full codecision process. I see no point in Parliament pressing for more, new powers, if we are not prepared to exercise those we have.
Because we have been hurried along in accordance with a false timetable we have omitted our responsibility to ensure that there is a complete assessment of the impact of the climate change package by impartial authorities. For example, I was the rapporteur recently on the Waste Framework Directive. It promotes the idea of energy-efficient combined heat and power stations, but such plants may be penalised under the revised ETS. Was there any discussion on this important point? What happened to it?
Broadly speaking we have accepted what has been said by those states who are most alarmed by the package. We have omitted to put in place a robust impact assessment apparatus for the EU and now we pay the price. Nor do we have the slightest idea whether the targets set in the package are really going to be met. Are we convinced that there will be strong enough oversight of implementation, despite what Mr Dimas has said, and rapid action against states that do not put into operation even this weakened package?
How will we control all those effort-sharing projects in developing countries? If climate change is so important, we need a much more active approach to implementation than has been the case on environmental policies anywhere so far, and we have heard nothing about that. If anything good comes out of this, it must be a new resolve to secure watertight guarantees on implementation and a standardised system of impartial impact assessment such as they have in the US Congress.
Someone said that this rushed first-reading agreement was not to be seen as a precedent for Parliament’s willingness to give in to the Council and throw away its powers, the powers it has under codecision. But it will Mr Borloo, will it not? And future Parliaments will live to regret it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE ). -"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples