Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-19-Speech-3-473"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100519.24.3-473"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are discussing here this evening the compensation which Bulgaria should receive for closing the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. This compensation is right, fair and timely because experts reckoned that the losses suffered by Bulgaria as a result of the closure of units 1-4 were much higher than all the compensation paid to it so far.
However, the following question remains to be answered here: why did we need to get to this point at all and why, as I mentioned a short time ago, did the safest units in Europe, declared as such not by anyone, but by the most prestigious agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, need to be closed? I am also amazed here at the madness of how this report on compensation has ended up in the hands of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance who started and ended their speeches with how Kozloduy must be destroyed, much like Cato the Elder used to say the same about Carthage.
At this point, I would like to address Mr Tremopoulos, who, if I may say, is hardly in a position to speak like this, because it is precisely his country which has just recently received a much bigger amount than Bulgaria is claiming at the moment, due to its blackmail. He should therefore not be so insistent in stating what Bulgaria should and should not receive.
We can now see some amendments tabled by the Greens, which have one aim only. This is why the Greens have a problem at the moment. Indeed, the problem they have is that they have contributed to the rise in carbon dioxide emissions with the closure of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. Now with these changes, which they want even more blatantly to use to take money from Bulgaria and reallocate it to another area, they actually want to cover up their own guilt. This is why they cannot explain to their voters why they, as European Union citizens, have to pay to have more carbon dioxide emissions in the EU. In this case, the Greens are adopting positions which are diametrically opposed to their views.
There is also an amendment which states that Kozloduy should serve as an example. However, the only thing which Kozloduy was an example of is how old reactors can be safe and operate perfectly well. The only thing it can serve as an example of from now on is as a warning: a warning of how, thanks to political folly, a wonderful, efficient and successful industrial sector in a country can be destroyed."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples