Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-028"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Market access to port services2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060117.5.2-028"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-17-Speech-2-0292
lpv:speaker	lp:Philip Bradbourn2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, along with most colleagues in this House, I have very serious concerns about the proposals before us. However, not only do I dislike the content of the proposals, which I will come back to shortly, but I also find it unacceptable that the Commission seems unable to take no for an answer. Two years ago, along with many colleagues, I found myself sitting in this very Chamber, having this very same debate, where a very similar proposal was rejected. Commissioner Barrot, why do I find myself in the same position again today? At a time when we hear that the Commission is about to repeal or will not proceed with over-regulatory legislation, we are faced with the proposals we are now debating. For the United Kingdom, the content of the proposal has been met with disbelief by the industry. There is not one port that welcomes the proposals. Should they be adopted, businesses which have worked hard to become the best performing and most competitive in Europe would be compromised and threatened. Within the proposals, authorisation periods and tendering are thought to be market-orientated measures that will increase services and competition. They do nothing of the sort. Services will be reduced as potential competitors cherry-pick only the profitable areas of business, meaning less development in the sector. Financial institutions will also be less forthcoming with capital investment as returns will be minimal and not guaranteed, leading to exactly the opposite of what is intended. I am all for the free market and can support any proposal that is market-orientated. However, that is not the case with this proposal. If the EU wants to see a market-orientated approach, I suggest that it follows what we already have in the UK: a tried and tested system. I call on this House to reject the proposal in its entirety and send a simple message to the Commission: ‘no’ means ‘no’ in whatever language one speaks, except ‘Euro-ese’ where it appears to mean exactly the opposite."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2005-02-18--2007-03-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; INTA (2005-03-17--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-10-13--2007-03-13)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE ). –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph