Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.12.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, is there anything the EU does not seek to control? Are there any issues at which most Members of the European Parliament will not try to throw taxpayers' money? Sadly, it seems not. Not content with single legal frameworks, tax harmonisation and the rest, the EU apparently wants to control nature. That is patently stupid.
The Habitats Directive of 1992, which established Natura 2000, states the EU's intention to define a common framework for the conservation of wild plants and animals. In the bold new Europe, even nature has to be standardised. Wiser counsels know this is impossible. When man seeks to play God, nature has an uncomfortable habit of reasserting itself.
As a member of the IND/DEM Group, which has Danish and English co-chairmen, I am reminded of the story of King Canute: tired of the flattery of his courtiers who told him he could control anything and everything, he took them to the beach and commanded the sea to turn back. The waves, of course, continued to lap at their feet and the King had proved his point. It strikes me that Canute had more sense than Europe's rulers have today.
If the EU is not power crazy and really is just an economic bloc, perhaps someone could tell me why it is necessary, for example, to list and protect all species of bat? Has anybody asked the bats? No, of course not. Once again, I can only conclude that if the EU is the answer, it must have been a silly question. You could even call it batty!"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples