EU environment ministers uphold GM ban
1st Dec 2004
EU has rejected proposals to force member states to abandon bans on GM maize
The European Commission had called on the Council of environment Ministers to insist Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, France and Greece lifted precautionary bans on the sale and planting of MON 683 sweetcorn.
The move was rejected by 12 votes to eight, with five nations abstaining. The UK voted in favour, despite the clear opposition to GM crops expressed by a majority of the British public and unresolved questions over handling liability for contamination of organic and conventional crops.
Green Euro-MP Caroline Lucas welcomed the decision, which she said demonstrated the inability of the European Commission to force GMOs on reluctant member states.
"This is the ninth time since 1998 that member governments have rejected plans to allow a GMO product to be marketed in the EU" she said.
"The majority of consumers and farmers are opposed to the introduction of GMOs - and with the majority of national governments also hostile it's time the Commission got the message and prioritised safeguarding organic and conventional crops from contamination."
The Commission's attempt to overturn the bans - all introduced by democratic decision under the precautionary principle - had been widely interpreted as bowing to pressure from the US and WTO to grant access to EU markets for US bio-tech firms.
Dr Lucas, Green Party MEP for South-East England and a member of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, said the decision was great news for those campaigning against commercial planting and sale of GMOs in the UK, and a victory for consumer choice and democracy.
"The Commission has failed in its politically unacceptable drive to impose GMOs on EU consumers and farmers who are clearly opposed to their introduction.
"Member states have acted according to their duty to protect not just public health and safety but also consumer choice and democracy."
Greens force Countryside Alliance to concede "we will not encourage law-breaking"
19th Nov 2004
Green Party councillor forces Countryside Alliance chief's hand on BBC Question Time
Dr Rupert Read, a Green Party councillor in Norwich, yesterday forced Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Simon Hart into stating, on the record, that he will not condone his organisation's members defying the ban on fox-hunting.
Questioned by Dr. Read on BBC TV's Question Time last night Hart conceded "I would never dream of telling people they should break the law... If people want to go down the civil disobedience line, it is a matter for them and them alone. I will certainly not encourage them to do so."
Speaking after the program Dr Read commented:
"This is a crucial concession from the Countryside Alliance. The rule of law must prevail on this issue. Parliament has expressed the will of the vast majority of the British people.
"The Green Party has long been a supporter of a total ban on fox hunting. We deplore the amount of Parliamentary time and resources which have been wasted trying to find a non-existent compromise with a fanatical minority. It is time to put this conflict behind us and address the very real issues of deprivation and marginalisation that affect those living in rural areas."
North East votes No to Regional Assembly - 5th Nov 2004
"Regional agenda will continue to be controlled from Whitehall"
"With a resounding 78% No vote, the people of the North East have rejected an elected regional assembly, and with that have put paid to any form of elected regional government in England, outside London for the next 25 years"
Cllr Nic Best, Green Party Spokesperson for Regional Affairs summed up the result, and said:
"But how many of the people voting know that decisions will continue being taken at a regional level:
- by One NorthEast, the regional development agency whose Board is appointed by and answerable to the DTI in London
- by the Government Office of the North East, which remains a bastion of Whitehall within the region
- and by the existing unelected Regional Assembly, made up of local government appointees and placemen?"
"We have and will continue to have regional government in the North East, voting No does not mean that powers will be returned to the local authorities, it just means that decisions will continue to be made by unaccountable QUANGOs."
He concluded:
"Widespread popular support for the principle of an elected regional assembly for the North East was effectively wasted by government's reluctance to devolve any real powers and their insistence on inappropriate linkage to local government reform. They now have a regional agenda that continues to be controlled from Whitehall, which probably suits them fine."
