Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-098"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Tobacco sponsorship and advertising2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021118.5.1-098"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-18-Speech-1-0992
lpv:speaker	lp:Marianne Thyssen2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams (2001-10-01--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-07--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, whatever some fellow MEPs may claim, this debate is not about emotions. What it is about is the extent to which, and the way in which, we can, and are willing to, remove the existing barriers to the organisation of the internal market in the field of tobacco advertising. Anyone who has read the judgment of 5 October 2000 knows that the Court of Justice has specifically opted for the first directive to be repealed altogether, because, on the one hand, it recognises that there is actually room for the legislator to take harmonising action and, on the other, because, as the Court, it did not want to take the place of the legislator. This was a wise decision on the part of the Court. I hope that we as co-legislators will act as wisely. This means for me that we should endorse the Commission's proposal without any amendments, for the alternatives are inferior. If we were to restrict tobacco advertising even further than has been proposed by the Commission, our ambition would run up against the bounds of our authority, and we would risk a new judgment. If we do not go as far as the Commission, then we would be making a political U-turn, for did we not indicate in 1998 that we wanted to go all out for maximum public health protection? The Commission's draft directive respects the bounds of the authority. This is not simply my political, but also my legal conviction. It may be a light-weight version of the first directive, but we have to live with it for legal reasons. We should not go as far as turning this light-weight version into an ultra-light-weight version, however. This is unnecessary and would affect our political credibility. Let us therefore approve the proposal as it stands. This is what people expect from us and that is also what we are definitely competent to do."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph