Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-100"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Thematic strategy on the urban environment (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060925.14.1-100"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-25-Speech-1-1012
lpv:speaker	lp:Renate Sommer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, particularly on his willingness to engage in dialogue. What I would say to him is that I know that, fundamentally we both want the same thing – an environment worth living in in the big cities and conurbations of the European Union, but it is evident that our opinions diverge completely when it comes to how this goal is to be achieved. Personally, I think the Commission’s approach is the right one: a thematic strategy and nothing more, and no legislative proposals, since we are not, in any case, empowered to make any. We can, of course, publish guidelines referring to existing provisions on such things as air, noise, waste, and so on; we can encourage the sharing of experience and support it, including financially, for we know that not everyone has to keep on reinventing the wheel. The rapporteur is trying to save Budapest, his home city, and that is an honourable thing to do, but he is also trying to circumvent the subsidiarity principle. He wants binding legal measures; he wants to tamper with local and regional authorities’ powers over planning matters and intervene in that area. I have to tell him that that is wrong; if you do that, you stir up public disaffection with the European Union. There are, then, a number of things about this report that my group and I want to see changed. For example, important though the protection of the environment is, it must not have the end result of making life impossible for businesses; the quality of urban life is dependent on the quality of the environment and on economic vitality. Nor, as I see it, does a congestion charge solve anything. Yes, of course there is a need for environmentally-friendly modes of transport, such as buses, trains, bicycles, and so on, but it would be wrong to ban cars, which are a means of transport for individuals, from cities. All that would do would be to encourage shopping centres on greenfield sites and the depopulation of the countryside, with people leaving the towns, inner cities becoming wastelands, and the quality of urban living declining. Nor is there any sense in demanding of cities things that they are quite simply incapable of managing – things such as the collection of data, even on the local use of biocides, a category which, let me remind Mr Hegyi, includes the flea powder that I use on my dog! That sort of thing makes us look ridiculous. We have to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is maintained; that is what I see our role as being, and that is the intention underlying our amendments."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph