Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.3.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
On the occasion of these technical votes on veterinary and phytosanitary matters, I would like to recall how important it is for the Member States of the European Union to retain sovereignty, at the national level, with regard to their freedom to assess and decide all food safety matters.
Indeed, States must retain the absolute right to protect their population. We have a perfect illustration of this today with the decision of the Commission to lift the embargo on British beef, and the refusal by France and Germany to apply this decision. In the opinion of the French it is clear that if 3,000 cases of "mad cows" are still being recorded in Great Britain every year, despite all the precautionary measures which have been taken, then there is something in the transmission of this disease which has not yet been fully understood. In these circumstances, our national food safety agency in France, approved by the French Academy of Medicine, considered justifiably that France must maintain its embargo. If we did not have this national agency, and if we had replaced it with a European agency, as some people are today requesting, then we would be deprived of objective information, and we would not have this expert opinion on which to base our reluctance.
However, the fact remains that the governments of European countries, particularly the French Government, have put themselves in an impossible situation by adopting the Treaty of Amsterdam. The new Article 95, modifying the former Article 100(A), prevents any Member State from implementing, on its own initiative, derogations to Community regulations in the field of public health, and force them to come and request the Commission for any derogations, justifying their case by presenting "new scientific proof". Well, it is clear that in the "mad cow" business, we are not adding any new scientific evidence in relation to the elements which the Commission already has in its possession. All we have is an alternative interpretation of the principle of caution: as ever, the Commission places a high priority on the freedom of movement of products, and it is interesting to note that, for once, France is placing a higher priority on the food safety of its citizens.
It still remains that the inconsistency between the European Decision to lift the embargo and the refusal by the French to do so creates an intolerable situation which, less than six months after the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, proves the fecklessness of those very people who supported it. A few more events like this, and perhaps the French will understand the usefulness of taking at home the decisions which are to be applied at home."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples