Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-255"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-07-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Single European sky2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030702.7.3-255"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-07-02-Speech-3-2562
lpv:speaker	lp:Konstantinos Hatzidakis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Nea Dimokratia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--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
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, obviously the technical issues relating to this specific matter have been adequately analysed; consequently, I shall focus on the political aspect of the matter and say that the question of the Single European Sky is inspired by two different and somewhat contradictory philosophies. The first philosophy considers that delayed flights, which are a very extensive phenomenon in Europe, are a serious blow to the airline companies, the passengers themselves, the environment and the economy as a whole. One of the most basic reasons to which this situation is ascribed is the constant increase in air traffic and, more importantly, the lack of a common system for managing the airspace of the European countries. The other philosophy reflects the concern of certain Member States who would like to secure their airspace rights, mainly in relation to their defence obligations and needs, and the corresponding facility to carry out military exercises in that space. These concerns are more acute where there are problems connected with these issues, in countries such as my own. The European Parliament has espoused the first philosophy. As in numerous other sectors of European policy, the choice of a real Community policy and uniform regulation have been judged more efficient. This was the philosophy at first reading. The Council, unfortunately, relied solely on the second philosophy. The concerns and doubts prevailed. The Council set particular store by issues of public order, security and defence. In this way, it essentially deadened the Commission's proposal and, of course, its position bears no relation to the position of the European Parliament at first reading. If the Council agreed with the objective of the Single European Sky, it should have adopted a different strategy. Otherwise, it should have said honestly that it disagreed with the endeavour. It is obvious that we are being drawn into a conciliation procedure. In this procedure, the Council must demonstrate flexibility. I firmly believe that there are ways for us to take essential steps as far as the Single European Sky is concerned, without touching on national sensitivities and vital interests. Where there is a will, there is always a way."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph