Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.11.2-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, it is gratifying that the Commission is addressing Europe’s transport problems seriously. Reducing deaths on the road by 50% is in particular an aim that deserves all our support. There is no good reason why anyone at all should die on the roads. Congestion in Central Europe is also a big problem, while in the peripheral regions the worry is safeguarding links with the European markets.
As well as the many good proposals, the White Paper unfortunately contains seriously mistaken evaluations. The Commission wants to break the link between economic growth and transport growth. That will not be possible, although we can certainly bring economic growth to a halt. By easing transport problems we can, without anxiety, allow traffic to increase. New vehicles will produce up to 90% fewer emissions than those manufactured before 1970. This is not realised if you only take a blinkered view of the matter. By abolishing all car registration taxes in Europe and lowering car tax for clean cars we will be able to improve the state of the environment radically.
Another odd proposal is that of freezing the share of the market enjoyed by the different transport modes at 1998 levels. This is something we might expect from the old Soviet Union’s Politburo, but it weakens the Commission’s authority very much indeed. It would be nonsensical to set out to forcibly steer the market share balance in the direction of targets that have been decided in an ivory tower. We should instead create an equitable situation for competition for all modes of transport. Let the market itself then decide the natural balance for transport modes.
The third error relates to the harmonisation of labour and social legislation. Only when it is a question of transport safety is the harmonisation of maximum transportation times appropriate, and then it will be on the condition that the costs and benefits have been closely looked at. If we make these three mistakes we will be further than ever away from a dynamic Europe.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of its own impossible situation, but our splendid European project deserves better. Our rigid economy is in need of care, and our self-inflicted sickness is actually not just an imaginary one. Unfortunately, the Commissioner’s medicine seems as if, dare I say so, it had been bought in a bazaar. Would it not be about time we stopped talking about the European model and sought recipes for success among those who are getting along best?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples