Euratom Treaty

Ever since 1984, in the context of the Euratom treaties, we have been trying to regulate this subject.

It is high time that the Euratom Treaty was revised.

Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen.

We need an equivalent of the Euratom Treaty for renewable energy.

I would like to make a final observation regarding the Euratom Treaty.

The Euratom treaty is less well-known due to the lower profile of the organisation it founded.

People have criticised and are still criticising the Euratom Treaty.

This is subject to the Euratom Treaty, and very clearly there are additional requirements.

The aim of the Euratom Treaty is to promote nuclear energy.

This is no longer acceptable in 1998-40 years after the signature of the Euratom Treaty.

The Euratom treaty thus remains in force relatively unamended from its original signing.

Having said that, the Commission has certain obligations under the Euratom Treaty.

The logical consequence of this is therefore that we cannot keep the Euratom Treaty in its present form.

We could have hoped for an energy treaty like the Euratom Treaty.

European nuclear policy is governed by the Euratom Treaty.

They monitor compliance with the Euratom Treaty around nuclear waste disposal.

We are left with an anachronistic piece of legislation, the Euratom Treaty, as our main legal base for energy.

This was the first sanction imposed by the Commission since the Euratom treaty had been signed in 1957.

The Euratom Treaty does not include any clauses specifically prohibiting state aid.

The proposal to revise the Euratom Treaty is wonderful.

But we also have the Euratom Treaty.

My second question concerns the Euratom Treaty.

Since 1957, the Euratom Treaty has provided the Commission with wide-ranging responsibilities.

We do not need to revisit the Euratom Treaty as this could be done through an inter-institutional agreement.

Otherwise, we might have to open Pandora's box, or the Euratom Treaty.