Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101123.5.2-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Almunia, and your offices. The impact assessment that you have presented is very good. It is based on facts, it is conclusive and it gets to the point.
It is a pity that the other members of the College of Commissioners have not read this impact assessment, because if they had read it, they would not have been able to present this proposal, which has nothing at all to do with the impact assessment. I wonder how the College of Commissioners picked the year, for example. There is absolutely no mention of this in the impact assessment. The only thing which might explain it is that 2014 is exactly halfway between 2010 and 2018. That is what it must be.
However, it may be that they have also not understood the content. None of the arguments in favour of this proposal can be seriously considered because they are not correct. There is the argument that the State aid scheme adopted in 2002, which is about to expire, was a phasing out arrangement for coal mining. Of course, this is totally incorrect. It was a successor arrangement. I know this, because I was there and I was the rapporteur for Parliament in 2002. This is when the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) expired after 50 years and a successor arrangement was needed, not only with regard to aid, but also other issues.
If this had been a phasing out arrangement, what would have happened, for example, to the ECSC’s assets? It was not a phasing out arrangement, it was a successor arrangement. At the time, we agreed with good reason on a period of eight years for this successor arrangement, after which we would look at the issue again. Therefore, this argument is incorrect.
The second argument which is put forward is the question of sustainability. We are all in favour of this and we know that coal, of course, produces large quantities of CO
emissions. However, a decision made by the Commission cannot abolish the laws of science. What will happen next? Domestic coal will be replaced by imported coal. That is the only thing that will happen. Imported coal emits just the same amount of CO
as domestic coal. The problem is simply that if we no longer have reference points, we will not be able to use them in the development of new, state-of-the-art technologies for mining and power stations. Europe is a leader in this area and has an export advantage. I do not believe that we should just give this up.
The third argument is that aid is harmful and that the money would be better spent on other things. It is not possible to say anything against this argument or against the attitude of market radicals. You cannot oppose an ideology with facts. However, the statement that this would be too expensive, for example, should be looked at in the light of what it would really mean if mining were to be stopped abruptly, and 2014 would be an abrupt stop. It would result in an increase in the costs of combating unemployment and, above all, in the costs relating to long-term pit closures. This is a very complicated and complex subject. The costs of long-term pit closures continue to be incurred years and even decades after coal mining comes to an end. The costs have to be paid out of the public purse. However, some Member States have a system in place which ensures that the state is not responsible for these costs. Therefore, this argument also does not hold water. For this reason, I recommend that you think this over again as soon as possible and that you pay attention to what is said in the impact assessment. Otherwise, the result will be regional and socio-political distortions, which we do not want. This is why the 2018 proposal is highly sensible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples