Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-158"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-13"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Obrazložitev glasovanja⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061213.27.3-158"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-13-Speech-3-181⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Corbett⁶
lpv:spoken text	". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² unknown; Labour Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²²
lpv:translated text	". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@cs¹ "Vedtagelsen af denne lovgivning er et stort skridt fremad for beskyttelsen af mennesker og miljø mod potentielt farlige kemikalier. Nogle fremfører, at den skulle have været bedre, og man kan endda sige, at et kompromis som dette ikke er perfekt. Men et sæt af fælles regler på dette vigtige område er bedre end et kludetæppe af perfekte (men forskellige) regler i nogle lande, halve foranstaltninger i andre og slet ingen regler andre steder - på det, der formodes at være et fælles marked med fælles regler. Det ville have givet ringere beskyttelse til en højere pris."@da² ". Für den Schutz der Menschen und der Umwelt vor potenziell gefährlichen Chemikalien bedeutet die Annahme dieser Rechtsvorschrift einen großen Schritt nach vorn. Einige Abgeordnete machen geltend, dass sie hätte besser sein müssen, und es gibt in der Tat Argumente für die Behauptung, dass ein Kompromiss wie dieser nicht perfekt ist. Aber ein gemeinschaftliches Regelwerk für diese bedeutende Thematik ist besser als ein Flickwerk perfekter (aber unterschiedlicher) Bestimmungen in einigen Ländern, halbherzige Maßnahmen in anderen Ländern und gar keine Regelungen wieder anderswo, was den vermeintlichen gemeinsamen Markt mit gemeinsamen Regelungen betrifft. Dadurch hätten wir weniger Schutz zu höheren Kosten."@de⁹ ". Η έγκριση αυτής της νομοθεσίας αποτελεί σημαντικό βήμα προόδου προς την κατεύθυνση της προστασίας των ανθρώπων και του περιβάλλοντος από δυνητικά επικίνδυνες χημικές ουσίες. Ορισμένοι ισχυρίζονται ότι θα μπορούσε να είναι καλύτερη, ενώ υπάρχουν εύλογα επιχειρήματα σύμφωνα με τα οποία μπορεί να θεωρηθεί ότι μια τέτοια συμβιβαστική θέση δεν είναι τέλεια. Ωστόσο, μια κοινή δέσμη κανόνων ως προς αυτό το σημαντικό θέμα είναι καλύτερη από ένα μωσαϊκό τέλειων (αλλά αντικρουόμενων) κανόνων σε ορισμένες χώρες, ημίμετρων σε άλλες χώρες και πλήρους απουσίας κανόνων αλλού – σε μια κοινή, υποτίθεται, αγορά με κοινούς κανόνες. Κάτι τέτοιο μας προσφέρει λιγότερη προστασία με μεγαλύτερο κόστος."@el¹⁰ ". La aprobación de esta legislación constituye un gran paso adelante en la protección de las personas y el medio ambiente frente a sustancias químicas potencialmente peligrosas. Algunos argumentan que habría sido mejor y, de hecho, hay motivos para decir que un compromiso como este no es perfecto. Sin embargo, un conjunto de normas comunes sobre esta cuestión importante es mejor que un mosaico de normas perfectas (pero divergentes) en algunos países, medidas insuficientes en otros y ausencia total de normas en otros, en lo que se supone que es un mercado común con normas comunes. Esto habría ofrecido menos protección con mayores costes."@es²⁰ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@et⁵ ". Tämän lainsäädännön hyväksyminen on suuri harppaus eteenpäin ihmisten ja ympäristön suojelemisessa mahdollisesti vaarallisilta kemikaaleilta. Jotkut väittävät, että lainsäädännöstä olisi pitänyt saada tiukempi, ja on perusteltua sanoa, ettei saavuttamamme kompromissi ole täydellinen. On kuitenkin parempi, että voimassa ovat tätä tärkeää asiaa koskevat yhteiset säännöt kuin että joissakin maissa olisi täydellisten (mutta eriävien) sääntöjen tilkkutäkki, puolittaiset toimenpiteet toisissa maissa eikä lainkaan sääntöjä joissakin muissa maissa. Onhan kyse kuitenkin yhteismarkkinoista, joilla pitäisi olla yhteiset säännöt. Muutoin olisi saatu heikompi suoja kalliimmalla."@fi⁷ ". L’adoption de cette législation représente un grand pas en avant pour la protection des personnes et de l’environnement contre des substances chimiques potentiellement dangereuses. D’aucuns disent qu’elle aurait dû être meilleure, et il convient en effet de reconnaître que ce compromis n’est pas parfait. Toutefois, un ensemble commun de règles sur cette question essentielle est toujours meilleure qu’un patchwork de règles parfaites (mais divergentes) dans certains pays, de demi-mesures dans d’autres et d’aucune règle ailleurs - dans ce qui est censé être un marché commun avec des règles communes. Cela aurait donné lieu à moins de protection à un coût plus élevé."@fr⁸ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@hu¹¹ ". L’adozione di questa legislazione è un grande passo avanti per la protezione delle persone e dell’ambiente nei confronti di sostanze chimiche potenzialmente pericolose. Alcuni sostengono che avrebbe dovuto essere migliore, e certamente è il caso di dire che un compromesso come questo non può essere perfetto. Tuttavia, una serie di norme comuni su una materia così importante è meglio di un mosaico di norme perfette (ma divergenti) in alcuni paesi, di misure a metà in altri e di una totale assenza di norme altrove – in quello che si suppone debba essere un mercato comune con norme comuni. Una simile situazione avrebbe fornito una protezione minore a costi maggiori."@it¹² ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@lt¹⁴ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@lv¹³ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@mt¹⁵ "De aanneming van deze wetgeving is een grote stap voorwaarts voor de bescherming van de mens en het milieu tegen gevaarlijke chemicaliën. Volgens sommigen is zij niet goed genoeg en inderdaad kan met enig recht gezegd worden dat een compromis als dit niet perfect is. Echter, een gemeenschappelijk regelwerk op zo’n belangrijk terrein is beter dan een lappendeken van perfecte, maar onderling afwijkende regelingen in een aantal landen, halve maatregelen hier en helemaal geen regels daar. En dat geldt eens te meer voor wat een gemeenschappelijke markt heet te zijn, waar gemeenschappelijke regels gelden. Het alternatief zou minder bescherming tegen een hogere prijs zijn."@nl³ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@pl¹⁶ ". A adopção desta legislação é um grande passo em frente para a protecção dos cidadãos e do ambiente de substâncias químicas nocivas. Alguns dizem que deveria ser melhor, e há de facto razão para dizer que um compromisso como este não é perfeito. Contudo, um conjunto de regras comuns sobre esta importante matéria é melhor que uma manta de retalhos de regras perfeitas (mas divergentes) em alguns países, meias medidas noutros, e ausência de regras no resto – naquilo que, supostamente, será um mercado comum com regras comuns. Isso dar-nos-ia menos protecção com custos mais elevados."@pt¹⁷ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@sk¹⁸ ". The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment from potentially dangerous chemicals. Some argue that it should have been better, and there is indeed a case for saying that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere – in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater costs."@sl¹⁹ "Antagandet av denna lagstiftning är ett stort steg framåt för att skydda människor och miljön från potentiellt farliga kemikalier. Vissa menar att den borde ha varit bättre, och det finns ju starka skäl att säga att en kompromiss som denna inte är perfekt. Emellertid är en gemensam uppsättning regler i denna viktiga fråga bättre än ett lappverk av perfekta (men skiljaktiga) regler i några länder, halvmesyrer i andra och inga regler alls på andra platser – på vad som antas vara en gemensam marknad med gemensamma regler. Detta skulle ha gett mindre skydd till större kostnad."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Richard Corbett (PSE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,21,13,4} "in writing"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "skriftlig"²¹