Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-070"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000330.4.4-070"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-30-Speech-4-0712
lpv:speaker	lp:Nicole Thomas-mauro2
lpv:spokenAs	member; UEN (1999-07-20--2001-01-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Rassemblement pour la France (1999-07-20--2000-11-22)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2001-01-30)3
lpv:translated text	"The aim of the regulation is to reduce noise pollution around Community airports, which are generally close to the Union’s economic centres, hence in highly urbanised zones. This regulation provides for the banning, as from May 2000, of certain noisy aircraft equipped with noise reduction devices known as ‘hushkits’. The civil aviation industry is experiencing annual growth of some 6% and this is expected to double in 10 years! This has to be accompanied by a progressive reduction in noise ascribable to aircraft. The noise issue is equally topical in American airports. Stricter rules on aircraft noise must be established at international level, within the ICAO. That is stressed in the resolution. In 1999, the regulation was suspended for a year. It will be implemented in May with a large number of exemptions. The latest Euro-American talks suggest this conflict is not about to be settled. On top of everything else, the Americans have lodged an appeal with the ICAO. The American industry exerts enormous pressure and the situation is distorted by the prospect of the elections. The United States’ position on the regulation is ambiguous; in fact, although the United States government is in favour of ending the litigation, American manufacturers are totally against the standards set out in the regulation which would penalise them. But how can anyone defend such exemptions on the pretext that there is disagreement? Did we tell French and Belgian chocolate manufacturers the directive would be suspended or there would be exemptions? Have we told hunters the ‘birds’ directive is on the back-burner or exemptions can apply because there is disagreement? What is the point of a legal text, months of consultation, drafting, work in committee, if it is not to be implemented? Is the European Union really just there to serve the multinationals and big business? This is not a lot of fuss about nothing. The Union should not be afraid of American threats and retaliatory measures. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy unanimously supported the European Commission by adopting a draft resolution rejecting the indefinite postponement of implementation and calling on the United States not to use retaliatory measures. A strong message is needed so that the international community can get the measure of the strength of European convictions in the battle against noise."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph