Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.7.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Three points: first of all on this important issue of SMP. We have made a stab at trying to enhance and improve the text but I am concerned, as was Mr Harbour, that we may actually have complicated matters, so whilst I feel that we have added a menu of additional concepts, a mélange, a pot-pourri of new tools to deploy under the title of SMP, I wonder whether we should perhaps be a little more bold in the second reading and perhaps think of drawing back where we consider, on reflection, those new concepts might actually be adding to confusion rather than diminishing confusion.
Second point: NRAs. This is really a point I would like to address to the Council, not that there is much point in doing it here this evening, but the Member States cannot have it both ways. They cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot wish to see a vibrant pan-European telecoms market established and yet not have any meaningful criteria attached to the way in which NRAs operate. That is an unsustainable position and, politically, we should push the Member States harder and harder on this. There need to be clear criteria of independence and autonomy and proper resourcing which we need to really push upon the Member States, and not be swayed by their slightly misleading claims that it is all to do with subsidiarity and therefore none of our business.
Finally, on the all-important Article 6 of the Paasilinna report and the vexed Amendment No 33, which Mrs Niebler spoke about earlier, we should perhaps have another look at it in second reading. I am not sure if you have the balance right. I am clear at this stage – and my group will vote against it – that those provisions should not cover ‘must carry’ provisions and we will be voting against that section of that amendment tomorrow.
Finally, I wonder whether as legislators we really do make good telecoms junkies, to quote Mel Read. I just leave that as a question mark."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples