Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-396-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110215.22.2-396-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The regulations we have prepared today are of enormous economic significance for the European Union and its single market. The Chernobyl disaster showed us that the linear extrapolation of radiation-related risk results in unnecessary economic losses. Areas equal in size to many a country were evacuated in Belarus and Ukraine. Belarusians are now returning to these areas, where radioactivity is the same as that in the centre of Warsaw, unbelievable as it may seem. Meanwhile, some of the ‘Chernobyl victims’, the around 8 million Ukrainians who receive allowances which are, in any case, too low to live on, will not consider returning for fear of losing this meagre compensation. The European Union should draw conclusions from this experience, which is of vital importance.
It was easy to resettle people within the former USSR, and it was accomplished efficiently after the disaster. It is hard to imagine how this would be done in Europe’s densely-populated areas. Who would be given the responsibility for such a task? Financial compensation should be awarded in particular to farmers, who may lose not only their crops, but also the opportunity to cultivate any crops for many years. The same applies to forests, although to a lesser degree. It is well known that the polluter should pay, but how will we decide who is responsible and who should pay if we are hit by nuclear fallout from third countries? Who will deal with this? The EU, of course. I therefore voted in favour of adopting the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples