Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-160"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20010116.9.2-160"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I was delighted to find this topic on the agenda today. I would like to thank Mrs Jackson for raising the question. Although you refer to three specific EU directives, I would point out that what we are talking about here is a widespread problem with the transposition of EU legislation in the Member States. If you start from the principle that directives and regulations are adopted by the Council and Parliament in the EU, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the Council – which does, after all, use these directives – will transpose them in the Member States accordingly. But what do we see happening? Two camps are forming. On one side there is the European Union, which seeks to blame the Member States for shortcomings. On the other side, there are the Member States, which are more than willing to offload their problems onto the oh-so-distant Europe, forgetting in the process that they are part of Europe themselves, and the Commission is piggy-in-the-middle. Commissioner, you have gone to great lengths to try and ensure that these laws are transposed in the European Union in a purposeful manner. But it really is not that simple and, of course, we have criticised your methods sometimes. I can understand to an extent, why you took the line you did. There are various reasons as to why countries have trouble transposing this legislation. In my opinion, one of the reasons in the case of the nitrates directive is the failure to observe scientific findings, because one thing is for sure, it is not possible to reduce nitrate levels as rapidly as we demand. Nature simply will not allow it. However, in the case of the habitats directive, Parliament highlighted the shortcomings quite clearly last year, namely that the directive was complicated and unclear in parts and so it cannot be transposed in the Member States. When we were in Toulouse, we saw how local people are trying to transpose it. But basically, they do not know what is going on. They do not know where the boundaries are, or how to apply them properly. These are shortcomings that must be reviewed as a matter of priority. But it is also responsibility to ensure that the directives are less utopian and far more realistic in nature. Mrs Jackson's question actually contains all the points we need to address and there is nothing more to add to it. Speedier sanctions and careful drafting of laws will enable us to solve this problem. However, I would just like to point out that something needs to change in the Member States too, because the Environment Ministers are, no doubt, sometimes too cowardly to promote the initiatives they adopt here, in their own countries, if this could lead to conflict."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph