Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.9.1-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would of course also have been glad if the Commissioner responsible for transport policy had been present, but I suppose that this is not possible. What are we talking about here? We are not discussing transport policy today; we are discussing the worst aspect of a market economy, quotas. How can we distribute what Switzerland has graciously allotted to us – all because the former Transport Commissioner was careless when he negotiated with the Swiss Minister for Transport on Europe's behalf – how can we share out these concessions amongst the Member States?
We need to be aware of this. That is what this is all about. The proposal tabled here by the Commission is actually quite shameful. I should like to make that perfectly clear. Why do we need basic allocations? Do we really want the same to happen with these quotas as we have seen happen with milk for at least the last ten years and for them to become tradable assets? I have already heard countries on the periphery of Europe say today that they will be glad if they can enter into quota-trading. No, of course that cannot be the case! The quotas belong to the European Union and they must also be returned to it. Only the European Union has the right to reallocate them.
Surely it would be better to leave them where they belong – that is, where freight transport really takes place – rather than first scattering them in a happy-go-lucky fashion across all the Member States and then engaging in a laborious process of collecting them in again and reallocating them. We ought to realise that this is not a sensible strategy. I should also like to state quite clearly that overall the rapporteur has certainly produced a very good piece of work, and I should like to thank him for this. However, I have to say that I would have been glad if, given the narrow majority – of one vote – which we had in the committee, the rapporteur and his group had shown a little more willingness to compromise because – and I am saying this quite clearly today – if, when we vote on Wednesday, our Amendment No 7 to reduce the basic allocations to 500 is not passed, we will vote against the whole report. On this point, I would add that if our group, the PPE-DE, had not abstained in the committee we would not be having a debate now. There was a majority against the report. That is why I should like to ask that at long last we be prepared to negotiate on this and not dig our heels in and simply refuse to discuss anything with each other. That is neither in the interests of those who have goods to transport either through or within Switzerland nor is it in the interests of the neighbouring countries. When I consider that 30% of the traffic going through the Brenner Pass alone is traffic diverted from Switzerland, then surely we really must use the quotas here to ensure that the shortest route once again appears an advantage instead of placing an excessive burden on the surrounding countries, a burden which is far greater than any statistics show.
I should therefore like to ask that the time until midday on Wednesday be used for further discussions on a compromise. I have abandoned the hard line I took in the committee, I have been willing to compromise on this and would be glad if this willingness to compromise were forthcoming from the other side; otherwise we will vote against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples