Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-15-Speech-4-116"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Postal services2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030515.5.4-116"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-15-Speech-4-1172
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie Anne Isler Béguin2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to welcome you to the House, but I too regret that Mr Monti is not present to give further explanations regarding the issues that have been raised. In fact, and I think that other Members here today feel the same, we are not at all sure whether your colleagues, and in particular Mr Bolkestein, have briefed you adequately, and entirely transparently, with regard to their intentions. Those intentions, which I would describe as secret, because we have the impression of not knowing exactly what they are, seem to consist of continuing with the dismantling of the European postal services without going via the European Parliament. That is the matter at issue here: the Commission is acting outside the codecision procedure, in other words circumventing the compulsory route via the European Parliament in order to legislate on the future of the European postal services. I am not going to repeat the many arguments that we have already set out here, on numerous occasions, in order to defend public services and the European postal services, to explain – once again other Members have drawn attention to it ahead of me – the essential role played by the public postal service today in keeping our regions alive. We are sticking to those arguments, because this is the message that the citizens of Europe are sending us and it is our job to maintain that position. We cannot help but take note of the Commission’s reply, but what it says to us is that the Commission has withdrawn its programme for this year. Does that mean that this matter will be transferred to next year’s programme? There is always, as I have pointed out, the possibility that the Commission will go back to its draft following the Green Paper. What would that mean? Nothing is clear! We are certainly not reassured by this, particularly since, as I have just said to you, we are perfectly well aware of Mr Bolkestein’s intentions. It is essential, therefore, to proceed via legal channels, in other words via a European directive that can be discussed here, so that we can see what the Commission’s real intentions are. I should like to say to you, Commissioner, that what is at stake here is respect for the work of each one of us, respect for the work of the Commission and respect for the work of Parliament, which represents our citizens. I should also like to emphasise, once again, because we have the feeling that the message has not been fully understood, that postal services, as Mr Savary has already said, are something that our citizens rely on. We cannot, therefore, endorse any draft which does not go through the procedure of a directive discussed in this House."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph