Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-458"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.41.2-458"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have three main things to say.
The first concerns the method, the procedure and codecision. I have heard mention, here and there, of the idea that this first reading agreement should not set a precedent. There is no one who particularly wants that. I think that the particular circumstances at the moment, between Copenhagen and Parliament’s democratic process, meant that we absolutely had to conclude this at first reading, or there would not have been agreement, which was possible. However, I think that the in-depth work in the Commission’s proposal, which was extremely thorough, and the work of the Council in its various energy and environment configurations, meant that everything was in place for reaching an agreement. The confidence pact made three weeks ago, in the middle of the trialogues, has, in a way, enabled us to reach a conclusion.
It is indeed Parliament that, in the last instance, as is normal, will take the decisive vote, which will take place tomorrow.
My second comment concerns all of the texts. I know that, on any one point, we can always have an extraordinary focus on method. What is important is not the methods, it is the guarantee, in all honesty, that we are giving ourselves the means to achieve the objectives.
I will use the example of CO
from cars, which has been the subject of the most definitive talk. I do not share these views, because, in terms of vehicle construction, you know very well that it takes years to design and construct cars. Mr Davies, you know this. Mrs Harms supported the Commission’s proposal, which did not mention the 95 grams. Basically, the consensus that the trialogues reached is a slight softening of the short-term or immediate penalties, which has little influence on immediate production, in exchange for a confirmed, major strategic decision of 95 grams, and no longer 120 grams.
Perhaps we could have a discussion and find that we could have done more. I do not dispute this, but I do not think that the methods adopted on all six texts are retreats in relation to the Commission.
The Commission made complex proposals because the situation is complex, the situation of the Member States is complex, the situation of our industries and our social climate is complex, but I think that we all have the means to reach this first stage of the climate and energy package.
The third thing that I have to say is regarding external expression, and basically, preparation for Copenhagen. I am saying this as personally as possible, as I was in Poznań three days ago. We cannot have great negotiations in Copenhagen if we, as Europeans, are not 100% proud of our first stage. If we externally devalue, in relation to our US, Canadian, Australian, Chinese and Russian partners, and many others, if we ourselves devalue a first stage of essential breakthrough, we should not be surprised if the others do not take us seriously in the Copenhagen negotiations. They will not have the European Court of Justice on their side to ensure that the directives concerned are properly implemented.
So please, let us have an internal debate; that is normal. Obviously there are the votes, but believe me, the whole industry has understood the message. European citizens have understood the message, whatever happens, and that is nothing to do with us or our directives. Quite simply, now the rest of the world is listening to us, so let us not devalue an extraordinary achievement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples