Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.2.4-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ‘the best is the enemy of the good’, as they say in France, and I do fear Mrs Read’s report is a striking illustration of that saying.
Indeed no one will deny that means of communication, and in particular the Internet, are most important to the future development of our societies, or that the EU Member States are currently trailing behind the United States in this respect, or that we need to legislate to control the potentially anarchic development of these means in order to limit the excesses to which they can give rise and ensure that they are as successful as possible for our people.
Yet I fear that the catalogue of good intentions before us today may, in fact, make it more difficult to achieve the objective we are seeking. Rather than moving ahead one step at a time and setting the Member States a concrete and quantifiable short or medium-term objective, Parliament is sending out a confused and confusing signal, largely, it is true, because of the rather bizarre committee work. We would have liked to see more precise details about the specific nature of the European approach to this subject and, in particular, on how the Commission proposes to help the Member States to check the headlong race towards standardisation, an exact blueprint of the American model, which is bound to encourage the development of these tools on the basis of purely technical and commercial considerations. The educational and social concerns set out in the report are, no doubt, laudable ones, but in the end they will have little impact given the immediate repercussions that the extension of this tool will have for the people of Europe.
In what way is the Commission’s document compatible with the existence of tax provisions in the field of commerce and employment specific to the various Member States? How can we ensure respect for our concepts of the freedom of the individual and freedom of expression, which have not yet been harmonised at world level? What guarantees are there for the security of our states in the context of the development of a technology operated chiefly by a big power which, while teaching the whole world the lessons of liberalism, never forgets to ensure that its own enterprises scrupulously respect its concept of the national interest?
It is rather surprising, Mrs Ferrer, to read in paragraph 55 of your report that this Parliament expressly supports …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples