Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-175"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Development of the Community’s railways – Certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community – International rail passengers’ rights and obligations (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070117.9.3-175"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-01-17-Speech-3-1762
lpv:speaker	lp:Paolo Costa2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; La Margherita (2005-02-18--2008-02-06)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2007-01-15--2007-01-30)3 chair; TRAN (2007-01-15--2007-01-30)3 substitute; IMCO (2007-01-15--2007-01-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the distinction between international transport, and transport between Member States and national transport dates back to 1956, specifically to Article 70 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, in other words the first piece of European transport legislation. It seems quite obvious to me that cross-border transport should have been prudently entrusted to the European institution when the internal market in transport began to be created, but it is just as obvious that the false distinction between international and domestic transport should subsequently have been abandoned for road, sea and air transport, for cabotage, and finally, on 1 January this year, for rail freight transport. Why then, Mrs Roth, should this distinction persist just for this last enclave of premodernity: rail passenger traffic? Why, Mr Barrot, make so much effort to liberalise 5% of the rail passenger market within three years, by 2010? Why prevent the beneficial effects of competition from helping the remaining 95% of the rail market to regain its competitiveness compared with road and air, without which we will not find a solution to any of the problems facing us? Why enable only 5% of passengers to enjoy at last the obvious protection that all consumers deserve, particularly those with disabilities, when we have already extended it to all air passengers? Do you not think that a ten-year transition period for everyone, or even 15 for the new Member States, is enough to allow even the shakiest of national monopolies – which are today defending their exclusive internal markets – to get ready to face up to competition? After all, competition cannot be destructive, because the market is already declining and only competition can help to expand the market for everyone. In short, ladies and gentlemen, are we really incapable of giving up an attitude that was effective 50 years ago but today, frankly, is endangering our whole strategy?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph