Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-335"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.13.4-335"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As a new Member of the European Parliament, let me say how shocked I am. I did not take part in the previous legislature, which experienced the sell-off with regard to the notion of ‘French style’ public service, and I really do mean a wholesale sell-off similar to what happened to the transport, postal or even the telecommunications sectors.
In proposing to outline the situation as regards the transposition of the Directive of December 1996, on electricity, and of June 1998, on gas, the Mombaur report is patently expressing the ultraliberal philosophy of the Commission which, under cover of bringing about an internal energy market that is of the greatest advantage to the consumer, is demanding that these markets be opened one hundred percent to competition.
The process is always the same. The Commission puts forward a minimalist directive on the basis of the argument that liberalisation can only be profitable in a context of deregulation. Next the supporters of ‘ever more Europe’ transpose the directive and go even further (at the start of the year, 65% of the European market had been liberalised although the directive required only 30%!) and, finally, the Commission comes back a second time to ‘regularise’ the
situation in a much more restrictive fashion!
It is all the more unacceptable, given that there are still problems! What is the point of bringing about a single energy market when electricity and gas are not compatible (in terms of production and distribution, development of the market, or notions of public service)? How can one reasonably ask a service provider to ensure continuity of a public service, which is available on a fair basis, if this is not economically profitable? By the same token, how can we ask the former monopolies to now become totally competitive, when they still have major investments to pay off, the product of yesterday’s political choices? How can one reasonably demand ever lower prices in the sacred name of competition without challenging current requirements regarding nuclear safety? How can the national concept of public service be replaced by the Community concept of a general interest activity, which is far more restrictive?
I could carry on like this at great length. Let me point out that it took decades of republican tradition to enable the gradual build-up of our public services. Is it only going to take a transition period of four years to demolish them?
We were consequently unable to vote in favour of this report which expresses the will of the all-powerful Commission to go ever further and ever faster along the road of liberalisation. Liberalism may well be worthwhile, but only gradually, in small doses, without definitively ruling out state interventionism, lest we tomorrow suffer the financial consequences of giving it up!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples