Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.10.2-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you for the follow-up question. It is important for me to have a chance to answer it. It is clear that in a process such as this, where we are discussing the disposal of a considerable stream of both electrical and electronic waste in Europe, there is an on-going dialogue between the different parties concerned. The dialogue has been fruitful and has led to our preparing a proposal. Parts of it have been strengthened, but other parts may well contain too many compromises. We are still in the process of preparing a text, and the dialogue with the relevant parties will continue up until the last moment.
I do not think that the intervention of the United States should push us in a direction that would lead to our taking insufficient account of environmental considerations. I strongly oppose using the WTO and trade rules as a pretext for preventing the EU from introducing radical environmental standards. I start from the assumption that we should in fact introduce these. However, I do want to listen to all the points of view. For example, I recently met representatives of the electronics industry who put forward suggestions – including practical ones – for improving our own proposal. However, I totally reject any suggestion that I would allow the United States to determine the shape of our directive. In fact, I believe that we should be showing the way, an intention that will also characterise the final proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples