Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-13-Speech-2-161"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051213.52.2-161"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-12-13-Speech-2-1622
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am relieved that the outcome regarding the energy services directive improved in negotiations with the Council. The Council thus adopted a realistic approach to the proposals by Parliament and the Commission. I hoped that this directive would be an opportunity to correct the distortions of competition which the failed emissions trading directive entails. I opposed common savings targets binding on all Member States right to the last, because I saw them as punishing countries where energy savings measures had already been practised for a long time. It is perhaps paradoxical, but when we treat Member States the same way, we give them unequal status. For some, the Commission’s proposed target was actually quite tough, while for others it was ridiculously easy. It would have been a competition-distorting factor in the single market. A criterion of savings measures now is cost-effectiveness, which gives Member States some much needed leeway. This is my interpretation of the outcome. Now there will not be any over-prioritisation of measures: instead, voluntary agreements, for example, could also be employed. The final outcome will also carry a risk, however, if the comitology procedure does not adhere to reason and fairness as the guiding principle. There is a risk of excessive bureaucracy. The method by which we should start to calculate savings needs to be fair and flexible, and it should above all treat fairly those countries where savings have already been made for years."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph