Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.5.3-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are agreed on one thing: policy on trans-European networks is in urgent need of reform! The trans-European transport networks, and the 14 specific projects in particular, have not succeeded in any of the aims they were in fact intended to achieve, even though a great deal of money has already been invested. But two of these aims really are vital to the European Union. One is the key aim of economic and social cohesion, which holds the European Union together. These TENs were designed to prevent the drifting apart, or the risk of a drift apart, between poor and affluent regions. They have not done so. On the contrary, the 14 selected projects have, in fact, driven the regions further apart, and have encouraged a trend towards increased economic activity in the prosperous economic regions, because transport links have been constructed between them, while the poorer regions have become increasingly isolated.
Secondly, it is still a mistake to think that the trans-European networks help reduce mass unemployment. On the contrary, unemployment has risen: even in 1995, in the ten poorest regions, unemployment was seven times higher than in the richest regions, while today it is eight times higher, and rising.
So I really wonder whether we can afford to continue putting European taxpayers’ money in concrete without this having a significant impact on employment. Is there really any point in investing more money and calling for more money in this case? Is that not an incorrect response in structural terms, because we could do far more sensible things with the money in order to regenerate employment. I also wonder whether the value of these projects has not been offset by the environmental destruction they cause. In fact, they have achieved nothing. They have destroyed much of the living space of the people of Europe and we should take the mass protest movements against motorways seriously, for they often point the way to more sensible and less destructive options.
Perhaps the people who are protesting are actually right. Europe needs a considerably more intelligent and sustained transport policy, based on a modern approach that thinks ahead to the next generation, realising that resources are finite. As regards the 14 projects, the European Parliament’s call for a cost-benefit analysis was not heeded, whilst its call for environmental compatibility checks for all the projects was also ignored; only partial checks were carried out, which conflicts with the relevant directive. I think we really need to improve goods transport, which must be facilitated by rail in order to be sustainable. We must revise the TENs policy with a view to combining mobility with sustainability."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples