Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-30-Speech-4-025"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Trans-European transport network2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020530.3.4-025"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-30-Speech-4-0262
lpv:speaker	lp:Karla M.H. Peijs2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2003-05-26)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2003-05-26)3 substitute; ECON (2002-04-25--2003-05-26)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2003-05-26)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2003-05-26)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur, who has done very sound work, as usual. We agree with the gist of what he is saying, although my approach does differ from that of the rapporteur and that of the European Commission on a number of important points. It is unfortunate that in the framework of the TENs, the Commission is opting for the same approach as the White Paper: lots of trains, not much water. The rigid management of European trains makes rail transport as a solution to the congestion in goods transport less likely than we would like to think and hope. Development of the waterways is cheap in terms of investment, and unsurpassed as a solution to the problem of congestion. I, along with a few other MEPs, wanted to make this point and add a few specific, cross-border water projects. The strategy of the two large parties in this Parliament does not allow for this. Although I have been unable to see the point of this strategy to date, I have reconciled myself to it. If the three institutions had all decided against adding any projects, this would have been a logical step. It would have been much preferable not to review the annex in its entirety until 2004, by which time the acceding countries could have been taken into account to a greater extent. At the moment, only Parliament, which has nevertheless fought for the right of codecision on this score, will exercise restraint. This will result in a list that is a little one-sided from a geographical point of view. Fortunately, a few amendments, tabled together with the Liberals and the EDD, have been adopted by the groups. They call for alertness on all fronts concerning transport by water as a reasonably cheap solution to congestion. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it would have been far better for the Gallileo project to be financed from research funds instead of infrastructural funds."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph