Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.7.3-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not, of course, have to re-invent the trans-European networks, because we have them already. Mind you, they have already lost something of their impetus, considering who has been working on them and for how long. From 1996 until today, the TENs have undoubtedly had their ups and downs. At the beginning, or as early as at the Essen Council, they were hailed as the magic remedy for the European Union and its development, until the moment came when we realised that what was expected of them was rather unrealistic. No, I think that the TENs are a very important tool for the European Union, economic cohesion, the internal market and a modern transport policy. The Commission’s White Paper again made that clear not long ago. As Europeans, we need a transport policy that is technically up-to-date – GALILEO was mentioned as a potential model – and one that is sustainable, that is to say with priority given to rail and water. We should now have been a small step further down the road if the Council had also accepted the Commission’s proposals, as Parliament has done. In 2002, Parliament attempted a small revision of the trans-European networks, to which the Council has not so far provided us with a response; instead, the Van Miert Group has gone on to do its work.
So then, we do not have to re-invent the wheel. The Van Miert Group has done its work, involving high-ranking representatives from every single Member State, and its reports affirm that the Member States agree with what it has, as it were, thought out and presented. It is now, therefore, really up to the Commission to incorporate what the Van Miert Group suggested into a proposal. This would then go before Parliament and the Council and, given good will on the part of the Council, we should then have implemented relatively quickly what the Van Miert Group has thought out in terms of projects and, also, financing instruments. It is not quite clear to me why, in fact, we are now debating the issue once again. The proposals and plans are on the table. It is now just a question of their being implemented and worked on. That is why no further pressure should be placed upon available speaking time. So then, we have a proposal from the Commission, Parliament is doing its work, and then let the Council – instead of dragging its heels, if it please – very rapidly implements the proposal so that the revision of the TENs can be got rapidly under way."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples