Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-09-Speech-2-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100309.22.2-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, it is definitely a clear ‘no’ to the latter point on the IPCC. If I should distance myself from everything that is not in this paper, then I would distance myself from a lot of things. This is a way of trying to take for granted that we are facing a challenge, that we have to solve it, and that the EU has to take the lead in terms of how to solve it. That is the thinking behind this paper.
I do not agree that the EU does not have an impact on international negotiations. You are quite right that we do not have as much impact as we would like, to think that we could just dictate what is going on. We are dependent upon others.
However, we saw something very new in Copenhagen: whereas, in the past, the EU often had only a few partners when going into international negotiations and trying to get things done, this time, leaders representing more than 80% of global emissions in Copenhagen promised that, from now on, they would also be on track. That changes the whole dynamic substantially. May I remind you that to get the emerging economies on board and to get them to be co-responsible has been a European priority for years, and that was actually achieved in Copenhagen.
To Mrs Carvalho: yes, I agree very much that we should prepare both technically and politically, and that we should be better at doing so, not least so that, when we come to the negotiating table, we do not just say what we want and then, when the rest of the world disagrees with us, we do not really know what to do because we have expended all our energy trying to come together on a very firm and detailed formulated position. We should be more flexible in the way we negotiate this.
… and then finally to Dan Jørgensen: of course I do not believe that we should not reach an agreement in Mexico. What is under discussion is whether we believe that we can get all the details, including the form of the agreement, in place in Mexico. That is my concern. Viewed in these terms, I believe that we will increase the pressure on the US and China and others precisely by saying that we must have very specific deliverables and that very specific results must be achieved in Cancún. We cannot just put it off.
I am trying to make it difficult for them not to deliver in Mexico. I believe that if we are to achieve this, then we must make sure we do not focus too much on the legal form, because that could well obstruct agreement being reached on the actual content. There are a lot of factors to take into account – ‘What do we think? What are we hearing? What do we think it is possible to get the US to agree to just three weeks after they have had mid-term elections?’, for example. There are many factors that come into play here, but I believe Mr Jørgensen knows me well enough to realise that it is not because I do not think we should be ambitious in Mexico. We simply need to try to define what the maximum is that we can get out of Mexico. That is the pivotal point of the strategy that I have tried to present here today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples