Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-054"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Tobacco products2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001211.3.1-054"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-11-Speech-1-0552
lpv:speaker	lp:Nicole Thomas-mauro2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2003-06-16)3,3 member; UEN (1999-07-20--2001-01-30)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2001-01-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a subject tonight which lies outside our competence. Not for the first time, no doubt. But this time it seems much more serious than usual. So, once again, I shall deal with the substance and not the form. The fact is that the Court of Justice has just repealed the 1998 Directive banning advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The Court held that a total ban on tobacco advertising cannot be justified in the name of the proper functioning of the internal market. Now, in contempt of the Treaties, believing it is entrusted with a mission of salvation, our Parliament marches on, head down, to push this text through, come what may. That attitude perfectly sums up the defects of our European institutions, always ready to go to any lengths to achieve the ideological goals they have set themselves. But there are rules that have to be respected and we have to remember that. History teaches us that it is dangerous to regard the goal – however noble and virtuous – as superior to the agreed rules. The obstinacy demonstrated here reveals a striking lack of realism. Rather than learn the lessons of the defeat suffered in Luxembourg on 9 October, we persist in taking a legally indefensible attitude. Our group is profoundly attached to the preservation of public health, but we are worried about the consequences of such a suicidal political position. If we do not change our approach we are likely to kill the directive. Public health must not be put at stake in a power struggle designed to scrape together more new powers every day, to the detriment of the States. Health is too important an issue to be used as a political tool. So, what answers are there? There is only one, in our opinion: learn the lessons from the Court of Justice’s decision and recognise that the European Commission unfortunately went much too far in its efforts to distort the treaties. We must also have another look at our copy and redraft it respecting the balance called for by the Treaty"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph