Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-05-Speech-2-320-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-04-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Hour with the President of the Commission2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110405.17.2-320-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-04-05-Speech-2-321-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Lothar Bisky2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; DIE LINKE. (2009-07-14--2013-08-13)3,3 member; Conference of Presidents (2009-07-14--2012-03-13)3,3 chair; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2012-03-13)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2013-08-13)3,3 vice-chair; CULT (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3,3
lpv:translated text	". My question is similar to that of Mr Schulz. For this reason I intend to focus on a particular aspect. Naturally you will understand that, in the light of our experiences with the bank stress tests, we have become more sensitive about stress tests, including those relating to nuclear power. My question relates to Euratom. I do not wish to sit as judge and jury on the huge sums of money that Euratom swallows up on research. In my personal opinion, this research funding is being spent on a technology riddled with risk. I do not believe these risks are subject to adequate common controls, nor do I believe that there is sufficient scope for joint decision-making on this issue. After all, nuclear power does not respect national borders. That is precisely where the problem lies. Is it not the case that decisions on nuclear power should be taken on a joint basis because radiation recognises no boundaries?"@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