Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.3.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is regrettable that despite all the efforts made by rapporteur Maaten, we must conclude that no one is really happy with the developments that now characterise this report. I would like to make three brief comments.
My first comment concerns the legal basis. The Court has had a judicial review carried out and states quite explicitly that Article 95 can be the legal basis in some cases, provided certain conditions are met, but also states that Article 95 will not be sufficient in certain cases, for example Article 133 would need to be added where the export ban is concerned. In view of the lack of motivation, I therefore support the amendment tabled by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, which calls for us to reject the common position and ask the Commission to submit a new proposal.
As for the other comments, I would point out that we ought not to concentrate too much on symbols that do not tackle the root cause of the problem. Imposing higher taxes is not a satisfactory way of discouraging people from doing something. Increasing the space for warnings out of all proportion is not a satisfactory way of achieving the desired goal, i.e. better public health. What is more, I feel this will set a poor example if we want to put warnings on other products at a later stage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples