Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-307"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.14.2-307"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I have, of course, nothing against the principle of the directive. It is an important instrument for future environmental policy.
The Member States are given a clearer brief. They know what they should be aiming for. Upon examination of the table with the different ceilings for each Member State, however, I get the impression that there are double standards. I note that, for example, my country, Belgium, has to meet the maximum possible level, rather than the economically viable level, but that, at the same time, areas in its vicinity which are just as polluted as my country can pursue a much laxer policy. That is because a large country can use its better regions to offset its bad practices. A small country is not in a position to do this. I shall give you an example. From your statistics and maps, it appears that in northern France, which is just as polluting and polluted as Belgium, matters can be processed at a lower level. According to your calculations, the implementation of this directive costs each Belgian EUR 103 per annum, compared to EUR 15 for each person in France, including northern France. That is eight times less. This is partly due to the fact that we are a small country and we are surrounded by polluters. One per cent of the GDP per annum is too much of a strain for my country. I would therefore ask you to give me your backing for Amendments Nos 16 and 17, in which I request that the Belgian Government be given the chance to re-evaluate the situation based on the annual reports."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples