Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.6.3-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am happy that we are here together today, after all the discussions over recent months, and can confirm that all three institutions – the two legislative institutions and the Commission as the proposing authority – take the view that the regulation has to enter into force in May of this year. No other course would be possible, because there is no legislative process which is fast enough to allow further changes to be made in May. What is crucial in our view is that noise protection regulations are right for our people, that we must protect people in the vicinity of airports and that American interests have not, in any case, been affected thus far. Individual interests of American companies may be affected, but the regulation does not enter into force for aircraft registered in third countries until 2002, which is why we must bite our tongue somewhat and choose our words carefully, Mr President-in-Office.
I wonder if we should abolish this regulation as far as third country aircraft are concerned. It has not even entered into force. It is on the statute books but will not enter into force until May 2002. Why should we abolish it? I think that we should begin with a legislative procedure at the end of the year. Once agreement has been reached on global standards in the ICAO working parties, we can start to adopt these global standards in our regulation insofar as it relates to third country aeroplanes for the year 2002. If, during the course of the legislative procedure, which takes six months or a year, we receive an indication in September that these standards have also been adopted by the general assembly of the ICAO as they stand, we can conclude the legislative procedure well before May 2002. This was also what my fellow member was asking. We should not begin the legislative procedure under the slogan “suspend” but under the slogan “adaptation to new, jointly-agreed standards”. In this respect I think that Mr Slater should put his money where his mouth is, as we say in Hamburg. It is not enough for him to say that he wants to agree with us; as the Vice-President has called on him to do time and again, he must also say what noise reduction quality standards he wants to agree on. On that basis, Madam Vice-President, you continue to have our full support.
We admire you, because the Council has gone on the attack time and again, saying you should draw up a legislative proposal right away and give in to the Americans. You rightly said, the Americans are our friends but we will not be blackmailed when it comes to our own environmental protection. Stand by your guns, Madam Vice-President! If the Americans approach us on this matter, we are perfectly able in principle to start the legislative process the day after tomorrow. But I would advise that we wait for the first working results from the ICAO working party on noise protection regulations. Then we can start on a sound legislative process in the interests of all our citizens, because we want global standards which are more stringent that those we have had in the past."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples