Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.6.2-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
‘Public participation’ in ‘plans relating to the environment’ is something we are obviously in favour of. However, this report is another of those indecisive documents, where the proclaimed good intentions do not hide the ineffective measures proposed. If we consider current events in France alone, the Mont Blanc tunnel has been reopened despite the views of the people living nearby; the protests of those living in the Rhône valley against the noise pollution caused by lorries using the motorway, or even against the route of the TGV railway line, have been disregarded, we can see how little importance the authorities attach to public opinion when it is voiced.
Apart from that, what control can the public now have over preventing a disaster, such as that of the sinking of the
from polluting hundreds of kilometres of coastline?
What control can the public even have over preventing a disaster, which, unfortunately, is not only ecological, such as that of the explosion at the AZF factory, from happening again?
In reality, since the public does not have the right and the means to control the activity of businesses such as TotalFinaElf, nor does it have the possibility of banning any economic policy that is detrimental to society and to its own workers, ‘public participation’ comes across as a hollow expression.
We abstained from the vote."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples