Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-10-24-Speech-4-011-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2013-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Electronic communications - Recent proposals to complete the digital single market (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20131024.6.4-011-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2013-10-24-Speech-4-012-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Giles Chichester2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, it is very good to see the Commissioner here this morning, but it would have been even better if we could have met before the proposal was put. It is not common for EU institutions to criticise each other, let alone for one department to criticise another within the same institution. Yet we have the European Parliament Impact Assessment Unit criticising the Commission, and the Commission Impact Assessment Board criticising the Commission’s impact assessment, not once but three times. Not only that, but we have a paper from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) pointing to many flaws in this Commission proposal, including such sins as unnecessary complexity and greater legal uncertainty; no consultation and analysis; misleading, inaccurate comparisons with the USA; no reference to the dynamics of next generation networks; citing market fragmentation in Europe with no evidence that innovation or investment has been hindered; insufficient recognition of BEREC progress towards regulatory harmonisation (they would say that, of course); no specific assessment of the impact on SMEs; and so on and so forth. Then we have the commentary by Rewheel, which debunks the idea that European consumers are worse off than US citizens on cost, use of mobile data and network speeds – not quite what the Commission tells us in order to justify this proposal. Of more concern are the sneaky transfers of sovereignty from Member States to the Commission in the fields of authorisation, spectrum harmonisation and net neutrality. Member States: you have been warned! In short, this seems like nothing so much as a vanity project of legacy legislation, tackling too many things and trying to run before it can walk. Many answers are needed."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; PETI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; PECH (2012-01-31--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Conservative Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament (2009-09-29--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Giles Chichester,"1 "author"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph