Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-068"

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	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001211.3.1-068"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-11-Speech-1-0692
lpv:speaker	lp:Werner Langen2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-03-15--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2000-04-03--2002-03-07)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, nobody wishes to play down the consequences of smoking on human health, but even if you want this measure and share the health policy objectives, the legal bases have to be right. The European Court of Justice recently handed down its judgment in the case of regulating tobacco advertising to protect human health and it is unambiguous: it is not the task of the Commission and the European Union to regulate these matters, but of the Member States. Only if the internal market is disrupted does the Union have regulatory powers. But the Commission has not submitted one single piece of evidence to show that the internal market is disrupted, not one. Quite the opposite. Where it actually is disrupted, with the different taxation rates and the special rules for Greece, everything is staying as it was. It is therefore ridiculous for people to act here, Commissioner, as though the ruling of the European Court of Justice had not changed anything. This ignorance really is staggering. I predict that this directive, too, will fall before the European Court of Justice, and Parliament and the Commission will make a fool of themselves just as they did the first time, if we are not prepared to examine the legal aspects. Commissioner, you are a Guardian of the Treaties and not someone who can overstep your competences here on your own initiative. If you enlist Article 133 for the export ban then the conclusion is obvious that it is not part of a common commercial policy to dictate to third countries what they should import. This legal basis, too, is completely worthless in my opinion, and that is why the unions, companies and colleagues here are right to refer to job losses. Ten thousand jobs because of the export ban alone, 8 000 of which are in the United Kingdom, are at stake. This does not help anyone to achieve their objectives because production is not reduced, it is just moved. We are seeking to dictate to others how they should live. This is presumptuous and it will not become law."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph