Nieuws van de afdeling

25 November 2005

Legal breakthrough in asbestos case

Today for the first time a case has been won by a victim of a disease provoked by private use of asbestos products produced by leading asbestos cement corporation Eternit. Eternit was declared to be in the wrong in refusing to pay an advance against compensatory damages for which the guilty party is liable. (Advances are routinely paid against future damages, in recognition of the grim fact that the victim may well not live long enough to see a court case completed and a final amount set.) To date, this has occurred only in work-related cases and those involving soil contamination brought about by the use of asbestos waste, distributed by the company, to pave roads, paths and yards. In addition to its breakthrough ruling, the High Council made an important declaration to the effect that Eternit was by 1971 already aware of the dangers of asbestos and knowingly kept them quiet. This is of great significance for Secretary of State Van Geel, who has stated that he did not believe that the state would be in a strong position were it to take legal action against Eternit (in favour of which the SP has long brought pressure to bear on successive governments) on the precise grounds that the company would not before 1975 have known of the health dangers.

23 November 2005

'The American legal order is not our legal order'

Harry van Bommel gave pride of place to the question of transatlantic relations during today's parliamentary debate on the Foreign Affairs Ministry's budget. “There's every reason to do this,” said the SP Member of Parliament in the party's contribution to the first round of discussion. “Because in the struggle for a just world order, transatlantic relations are important, but the question is now whether it is self-evident what these relations should constitute.” His speech, and questions to the minister, follow:

22 November 2005

Astonishment greets vote on Ports Services Directive in European Parliament

A complete rejection of the Ports Services Directive, as proposed by the SP, failed narrowly to garner sufficient support in today's vote. At the same time, however, compromises brought forward by Christian Democrats (EPP) and Liberals (ELDR) were also thrown out when both political groups decided in the end to vote against their own proposals. This astonishing spectacle unfolded today when the European Parliament's Transport Committee voted on the controversial measure to liberalise Europe's ports.

22 November 2005

Vote on the Services Directive: Death knell for Social Europe?

Today the European Parliament's Internal Market Committee voted on the controversial Services directive. SP Euro-MP Kartika Liotard was horrified and not a little surprised to see a compromise which had taken much difficult negotiation to achieve thrown out. Particularly disturbing was the fact that the most problematic point in the directive, the so-called country of origin principle, was preserved. As Ms Liotard said, “Only a mass mobilisation from progressive parties and trades unions can now prevent the idea of a social Europe from meeting its end.”

17 November 2005

Chemical industry can carry on regardless

Today the European Parliament approved a directive which will broadly mean business as usual for the chemical industry in relation to any products whose health risks are imperfectly understood. The so-called REACH proposal has been so diluted by the centre-right Christian Democrats of the European People's Party political group and their Liberal allies that it will have little impact. The assurance from the Dutch Christian Democrat Member Ria Oomen-Ruijten that even those critical amendments which had been successful would not, given the balance of forces, survive the votes in the Council of Ministers or the Parliament's own Second Reading (where they would need the support of more than 50% of all MEPs, and not just those attending) convinced the SP's Members to vote against.

16 November 2005

NATO: bad news on all fronts

“Neither terrorists, nor failed states nor the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction present us with our greatest threat. By far the biggest danger facing the world is the structural shortage of welfare, democracy and peace. The billions spent on armaments by NATO countries would therefore be better invested in the social, economic and democratic development of the world. It is this which we should be debating here.”

International