Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-06-Speech-3-059"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-10-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101006.11.3-059"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-10-06-Speech-3-0602
lpv:speaker	lp:Herbert Reul2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2012-02-12)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-21--2014-06-30)3 substitute; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 chair; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this was a major disaster, and there are various ways of reacting to disasters. You can rush about taking action and make a new declaration every week, or you can investigate the situation thoroughly and then consider where things need to be changed. Where the starting point is concerned, for example, it has been established that the situation in the United States is not really comparable with that in Europe. Commissioner Oettinger has chosen the latter path: to proceed in a sober, objective manner, one step at a time. That is how you make policy, and it is how you gain the support of our citizens. I am grateful firstly that the Commissioner has chosen this course, and secondly that he has involved all the committees. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy were jointly involved in plenary and both participated in the discussions with the Commissioner at which we were able to go into the facts in more depth. Unfortunately, I must point out – as Mrs Tzavela has already mentioned – that the Environment Committee then felt it had to submit a resolution unilaterally. I consider that to be absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, rushing out any old hasty document does not serve the end of parliamentary cooperation and does not serve to deal with this issue properly. We have learned – as, in fact, we all knew – that the Commission is to present a communication next week or the week after that analyses the consequences of what has occurred. We will then, as the Council quite rightly points out, be able to consider intelligently what the consequences should be. The Environment Committee felt it had to present a motion for a resolution on this quickly, so now we have been presented with a resolution that I consider to be overhasty throughout. As far as I am concerned, it contains errors and completely disregards a great many aspects relating to research and technology, as Mrs Tzavela has just pointed out. Who cares? All that matters is to get something out, even if it addresses the matter from only one perspective. This is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, drawing the conclusion that a moratorium should be pronounced is a successful attempt to draw attention to Europe as a centre of industry. Ladies and gentlemen, this is no way to go about things. I am grateful for being allowed to take the floor. Here at least, one can still speak. My committee was not involved in the resolution at all."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph