Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-092"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020515.5.3-092"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-15-Speech-3-0932
lpv:speaker	lp:José Ribeiro E Castro2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; UEN (1999-11-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-11-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"After all the many months of work and wide-ranging interinstitutional discussions, both in public and within the Parliament, I regard it as being very regrettable indeed that the majority of this House has still insisted on rejecting all the amendments inspired by basic ethical imperatives of a humanitarian nature. A majority of this House has thus revealed that it is absolutely insensitive to basic human values, and displays an unfortunate belief that technology should prevail without any limitations. I am referring to the rejection of Amendments Nos 89, 91, 92 and 95, which undermines a very important milestone for Europe's scientific community and for EU research policy. I personally particularly regret the rejection of Amendment No 89, which I tabled, which upheld the "principle of legislative unanimity" which in my view offered the only firm and indisputable legal solution to those issues, while entirely respecting democratic legislative decisions taken by Member States. Accordingly, we could be faced, because of this obstinate blindness on the part of the majority, with a situation in which – through the European Union – the taxpayers of one Member State in which a particular substance, method or technology is considered illegal could find themselves financing something that is banned or illegal in their own country. It goes without saying that this would be not only an offence to democracy in the true sense of the word and to national legal systems, but it would also be completely absurd from a legal point of view and would be at odds with the normal legislative hierarchy."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph