Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.17.4-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Even if the basic idea of the Energy Community Treaty (ECT) appears sound, insofar as it is concerned with helping countries in south-east Europe, which are experiencing significant problems in that sphere, we believe that this Treaty has, inter alia, two major flaws.
Firstly, the Treaties do not confer any powers regarding energy – and, still less, powers of equivalent significance – on the European Union, the Commission having made use of provisions on competition policy to claim such powers.
Secondly, the ultimate aim of the ECT is to create an internal energy market between the European Union and nine other countries, even though, within the EU, this policy has already shown its limits: the gradual replacement of public monopolies by monopolies or quasi-monopolies, with an attack on public services; the rise in electricity prices even in those countries in which electricity generation depends very little on the price of oil; the risk of shortages in the short term because of a policy that gives priority to deregulation faced with the issue of security of supply; and so on.
There were other ways of helping our European neighbours to meet their energy needs aside from creating a controversial institutional and political system within the European Union itself. As usual, however, the pro-European ideology has prevailed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples