Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-206"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, quite frankly I am outraged at the assertion that this debate on the Euratom Treaty has been balanced. If we bear in mind that just six months after the Euratom Treaty had been signed there was a nuclear accident at Windscale, as a result of which huge quantities of food had to be destroyed because this fire had catastrophic consequences, then I find it incredible that today – 50 years later – anyone can claim that there is nothing wrong. The Chernobyl accident would never have had to happen if the lessons had been learnt ten years previously from the meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA. Let us take a look at Europe: accidents have happened at Brunsbüttel in northern Germany, at Tihange in Belgium, at Civaux in France, at Kosloduj and Pacs – two Eastern European nuclear power stations – at Barsebeck and most recently at Forsmark. These are just individual examples of the hundreds or thousands of accidents that happen every year. In each of these individual cases, however, we were close to a major disaster on the scale of Chernobyl. If anyone is claiming today – 50 years after the Euratom Treaty was signed – that there is nothing wrong, that we do not need to revise the Treaty, that we do not need transparency and that we do not need codecision for Parliament, then that is a scandal. The call for a revision conference for the Euratom Treaty is supported by both the Convention and Parliament, and has been voiced repeatedly. Before Euratom funds are used for more so-called new reactors of Soviet design in Eastern Europe, we should urgently convene a conference on the Euratom Treaty."@en1
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples