Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.6.3-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think Mrs Doyle cannot have examined the genesis of the actual situation, as we have debated this issue on several occasions in this House. I cannot imagine, Madame Doyle, that the Council was unanimous and this House almost unanimous in taking a decision based solely on the Airbus defence. No, there are thousands of residents living in the vicinity of airports who suffer considerable noise pollution. Obviously, this regulation offers them the best protection as things stand at present under current international legislation.
Secondly, Mrs de Palacio, Mr Coelho, in my view, the postponement of one year served no useful purpose, for the simple reason that American interests – and when I say American interests I mean the interests of one section of American industry – are clearly interests which run counter to the general improvement of standards, even more so in the case of ‘hushkits’. There are only two things that will cause them to shift position: pressure from the European Union or pressure from their own public opinion for, unfortunately, the United States is a vast territory and the environs of airports are less badly affected than the territories overflown in Europe, which is, by virtue of its geographical layout, affected more seriously by such constraints. American opinion will therefore only be shifted significantly in turn if we first make it known in our capacity as Europeans.
My regret is that this year’s postponement may have been seen by our partners as indicative of weakness in our position.
Let me tell you, then, Mrs de Palacio, Mr Coelho, that we want to see firm negotiation. There are no grounds for suspending regulations. We might at best revise them, but we could do so only in one instance: if an international agreement makes it possible to improve the situation and to draw up an overall framework agreement. An overall framework does not mean evading the issue, as I began to doubt upon hearing the views of the Council. Do we in fact all agree on the idea that the framework agreement should apply to standards on sound levels and should not seek to cover too wide an area, which would tend to force us to accept a number of compromises regarding sound levels, at the expense of some other type of pollution, which probably deserves our attention, but not so much so as to warrant our ceding our argument."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples