Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.4.3-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
When I voted against the ban on the advertising of tobacco products in 1998, my vote was misconstrued in letters to the editors of Luxembourg newspapers as a vote against the prevention of cancer. I tried to explain at the time that the EC Treaty provided no legal basis for such an advertising ban. The European Court of Justice has now confirmed that my position was correct. Members of Parliament cannot simply let their hearts rule their heads and adopt legislation for which there is no legal basis, however commendable their motives. In my long parliamentary career, which has now spanned 35 years, I have always adhered to this principle. I shall not change my approach and let myself be intimidated by the veritable threatening letters I have been receiving, which demand that I declare my voting intentions so that the writers of these letters can make my intentions public; this means, of course, that they can once again engage in misinformation and subject me to public vilification. These campaigns are waged by means of slogans, because those who conduct them are ignorant of the wide variety of considerations that a parliamentarian has to take into account when examining such a complex piece of legislation as a European directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.
I know that tobacco consumption is one of the most frequent causes of death and that public health must remain one of our main concerns, but we have to act within the bounds of our legal powers and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The recommendation for second reading made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy of the European Parliament does not meet these criteria. It not only contains the exaggerated demands of health freaks, which would result in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially women's jobs, to name but one adverse effect, without turning one single chain smoker into a non-smoker. But here too, as in the case of the directive banning tobacco advertising, the legal basis is wrong. An article relating to the internal market certainly cannot be used to justify an export ban. Acceptance of this recommendation for a second reading as it now stands would merely open the door to new litigation. The result would be uncertainty and delays and would only thwart the essentially good intention that underlies this legislative proposal from the European Commission.
It is precisely because I do not want this to happen that I have decided to reject the common position, and a motion tabled by my group proposes that the House do likewise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples