Principia Association

How about stopping massive deforestation? How about stopping forest fires? How about planting a tree? How about a better education of the person who wants to become a young entrepreneur in agriculture? None of the above ideas will cost you any money, they are not rocket science, they are common sense ideas, unlike the Green Deal, which will impose new costs.

We do not agree with your regulation for the following reasons: - we do not want a conformity of the product in question to be presumed and not proven; - you do not specify what a safe product means (or is this also presumed?); - you do not specify what the sanctions are for the manufacturer of a product that harms the interests of a consumer (use of malware software programs by the manufacturer, including backdoor…

Regarding your strategic plan, given the documents you refer to, we cannot consider it to be sustainable. You have some correct ambitions regarding advanced artificial intelligence systems, which would lead to a competitive Union in this field. Your plan,,REPowerEU should respect these ambitions.

We welcome the idea of Commission to promote sustainable products, otherwise we consider that the ideas of the Commission are contradictory. It is not clear why we have an idea of Commission in which we want to have durable products, in this sense it means that they rarely reach the repair and ideas in which the consumer is entitled to replace the defective product with a new one with the idea of repair his.

In your worksheet you say that you have as your “intermediate goal to reduce net gas emissions with greenhouse effect by at least 55% by 2030 '', and in Regulation no. 1242/2019, you are talking about a 30% target by 2030.The Commission does not specify how this goal will be achieved, given that this is the most important thing.

We appreciate the fact that you are trying to solve the problems mentioned by Draghi in his EU Competitiveness Report, but nevertheless, we draw your attention to the fact that the EU, in order to be competitive, should not be satisfied with the problems identified in the above-mentioned report.

We do not agree with this statement, it is an unfounded one: “Member States are allowed to establish themselves own limit values, in compliance with these minimum conditions of protection ''. We do not understand why states should set their own lead exposure limits. Have states found that they have workers who are more resilient to lead? No, in reality we run into some economic interests of some companies.

How hard is it for you to read your own documents? In the Report of 30.01.2013 on asbestos related occupational health threats and prospects for abolishing all existing asbestos (2012/2065 (INI) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0025_EN.html), rapporteur mr. Stephen Hughes, identifies as well as possible all (approximately) the problems that workers face.

As regards your concept of lifelong learning for adults, we find this idea interesting, but we do not consider it as extraordinary: 1. Discrimination: in practice, this idea discriminates against the very people you want to prepare for a constantly evolving labour market. The roadmap presented focuses on courses for professional development and retraining with a maximum duration of 12 months.

Filed in Romanian · English published by the European Commission

Regarding the GRECO report on fight against corruption and the subsequent actions of the CRIM resolution, we recall the following regarding the transparency of public activities as well as the activities carried out by interest groups (many of the statements below can also be found in the Principia Association's statements made during the public consultations of Commission_ but who would be interested in what an NGO…

We would like to say that we welcome this initiative (which comes extremely late) of the Commission, but that every time we see in advance the dust that will also be gathered from this document, which would (in theory) produce a relevant effect against corruption.