Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.17.4-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In an EU with 25 Member States, the report focuses too much on the problems in the Mediterranean area of Europe. Within the EU, there is a host of problems resulting from freaks of nature, such as floods in central Europe and heavy storms and frost in northern Europe, yet it is forest fires in southern Europe that are the problem constantly addressed by the European Parliament as one that needs to be remedied through the EU. We believe, however, that it is exclusively the Member States affected that are responsible for ensuring that measures are taken in this area. The fact is that, if the Member States are relieved of responsibility for taking such measures and for putting preventive systems in place to forestall disasters of this type, the risks will increase. In insurance theory, this is called ‘moral hazard’.
The report lists a host of different measures at EU level, all with attendant costs requiring significant increases in the budget. We are opposed to a specific EU programme for forest protection because we believe that it is the Member States that should assume responsibility for protecting forests. The report’s idea of awareness campaigns at EU level with a view to promoting a change of attitude towards the use of fire (paragraph 23) is one of several examples of the way in which the wealth of ideas that emerged while the report was being prepared has completely lost touch with reality.
We have therefore voted against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples