Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.6.3-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The history of European directives on opening the market in postal services to competition is a good illustration of the Commission's methods: from force to stealth, it makes skilful use of the weapons bestowed on it by the Treaty, in particular the monopoly on the right of initiative, to impose its theories and gradually see off its opponents, including in this case the European Parliament, which here had tended to advocate moderation.
It is all the more regrettable, as is so often the case, that the Commission's position is, in essence, perfectly unilateral and open to dispute. It has not furnished the proof that opening up postal distribution to full competition would be profitable overall in a country like France. And yet this is the objective towards which it is leading us
. And by what right? Just as it would appear justifiable that the Commission should wish to concern itself with cross-border mail distribution, so it seems to us that internal distribution should be the responsibility of each State.
Such distinctions do not exist, however, in the eyes of the Commission. Commissioner Bolkestein has just explained to this House that we need to "move forward towards the completion of the internal market for postal services". Does not this internal market exist today? Is it not possible to send a letter from France to Denmark or the United Kingdom easily and inexpensively? All of this is laughable. The internal market already exists and Commissioner Bolkestein is only betraying the fact that, for the Commission, the real objective is quite different: it is unification, of which we have no need whatsoever.
This issue raises another general question: the interface between the Commission's competence in matters of competition (where it now enjoys inordinate powers) and the Member States' competence to organise national public services. We think that, where there is any uncertainty, it is the State that should have the last word, provided of course that it has the clear support of the public. We must not allow the Commission to develop and impose a megalomaniac vision of its competences in the field of competition.
That is why the Convention which is going to meet to discuss the future of Europe should add this important issue to its agenda."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples