Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-336"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.20.3-336"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, before turning to the question of Natura 2000 itself, I would like to raise an objection to the way in which the Committee on Regional Development was bulldozed into an emergency meeting on this matter on Monday night. There was very little time to consider. We were told there would be an enormous outlay of EUR 6 billion, and now the Commissioner says that a minimum of EUR 22.75 billion will be made available for the 2006-2013 period. To compound matters, there was only one translation available, in English. I was disappointed to see the Committee on Regional Development voting in favour, although it did not do so unanimously, as Mr Hegyi stated, as I and several others voted against.
This episode is a perfect illustration of the cavalier way in which this Parliament too often goes about its business, and that is no laughing matter given the profound effect the EU has on people’s daily lives.
Natura 2000 is a case in point. Although we all appreciate that the environment is very important, the livelihood of human beings has to be the priority. Natura 2000 has had a negative effect in this regard. Let me give a good example from the Czech Republic, where an area has been designated to create feeding habitats favourable to partridges and quails and to reduce the erosion of soil and nutrients. My Czech colleagues tell me that this has been very good for the quails, but disastrous for the human beings who live and work there! In the United Kingdom too, chalk downland, dry bog and hedgerows have been destroyed in the name of EU standardisation.
The Habitats Directive, from which Natura 2000 derives, seeks to establish a common framework for nature protection as though wildlife were subject to academic theory. Nature, by definition, cannot be standardised, nor can real human lives, which is why UKIP opposes the dead hand of the EU wherever its grip extends."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Booth,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples