Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-155"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Heavy goods vehicles in Switzerland2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991213.9.1-155"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-13-Speech-1-1562
lpv:speaker	lp:Per Stenmarck2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the transit of goods and people through Switzerland has been a major problem for many years. Following intensive work by the Commission, especially by rapporteur Mr Aparicio Sánchez whose efforts we have cause to be grateful for, we now have the opportunity of obtaining an agreement for heavy goods vehicles, which is extraordinary progress. In the future, it will be a question of achieving more such agreements between the EU and Switzerland, and in connection with other types of vehicle too. However, the agreements on which we can now adopt a position on behalf of the EU concern transit through Switzerland for lorries of 40 metric tons. It could presumably be argued that the fee payable for this kind of vehicle is high. Before the year 2000, it amounts to CHE 180. Clearly, this is expensive, but the cost of instead driving around Switzerland would presumably be a great deal higher. This would also be a considerably worse alternative from an environmental point of view. As I see it, there is only one significant weakness in the agreement, namely the allocation of the quotas which have been negotiated and which increase in the course of the years leading up to the agreement’s coming into force. The proposal, which others too have considered, involves a basic quota which is the same for all countries. The only problem is that certain countries have no need of such a large quota while others need access to a significantly larger one. You have only to look at a map of Europe to realise that the flow of traffic from north to south signifies a great deal more for some countries than for others. For countries such as Sweden and Finland, another system of allocation would be extremely significant. Mr Ferber has tabled an amendment which involves our looking in a considerably more flexible way at the present allocation, and I support this amendment."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph