Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020513.7.1-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission communication and the European Parliament report on tourism clearly demonstrate how far European competences can be extended, with no regard for subsidiarity whatsoever.
My starting point is the fact that the Treaty does not provide for Community competences in the field of tourism, since the matter is only mentioned once, in Article 2, which cannot be used as a legal base. This position is in keeping with common sense: the tourists who visit a region are attracted by its specific local characteristics and this is why, in the Member States, responsibility for tourism is held at local or regional, sometimes national level. Although international cooperation may sometimes appear desirable, there must be flexibility between public and private partners, and cooperation should not have to be bound up in the administrative straightjacket of the Community system.
The European Parliament and the Commission clearly do not see matters in this light. They want to incorporate tourism into Community policies and create a framework programme with an appropriate budgetary line – see paragraph 12 of the draft resolution – with Community administrative resources – see paragraph 44 – and even, it could be said, a sort of planning. What are their reasons for this?
Tourism is important for growth. It can be a tool for development and can create jobs. It is already indirectly affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by several Community policies. The report now before us even adds that with the attacks of 11 September having indirect consequences for tourism, a European tourism policy has become necessary in order to respond to the shock that was inflicted. These arguments are interesting but none of them is central to deciding whether such a policy should be implemented at Community level.
In fact, Article 5 of the EC Treaty lays down only one criterion. Will the action that is planned be implemented more effectively if it is managed from Brussels? The argument on this point that the report puts forward is very weak, even non-existent. The opinion delivered by our Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, contains a revealing phrase. Having rightly noted that it is hard to see what a Community tourism policy would cover, it adds, and I quote: “Nevertheless, there is no doubt that common needs do exist and we must identify them”. In other words, something is needed – but no one knows what this might be.
To conclude, this report clearly shows that the Commission and the European Parliament are capable of proving that everything and anything falls within their competence. If they had their way, this approach would apply ad infinitum. This is why it is crucial that at the next intergovernmental conference, genuine supervision of subsidiarity, in other words, supervision from outside the Community institutions is put in place."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples