Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-04-Speech-4-061"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-05-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000504.5.4-061"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-05-04-Speech-4-0622
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie-Noëlle Lienemann2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2001-03-27)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2001-03-27)3 vice-president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2001-03-27)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2001-03-27)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-22--2001-03-27)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (2000-03-08--2001-03-27)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Sterckx’s report, which I believe constitutes a serious threat to the future of air transport. In the first place, this report gives no precise analysis of the liberalisation of air traffic. There is no mention of its huge impact on the environment. There is no mention of the major implications for airspace congestion related to the fact that the average number of passengers per flight has been considerably reduced as a result of competition. There is no mention, or only very superficial discussion, of the great decline in the social conditions observed in these sectors of activity, nor is there any mention of the adverse effects on town and country planning, to the extent that, at the present time, it costs a lot to travel to a remote area of Europe, whereas costs have fallen for routes which are already well served. These are the negative results of liberalisation. Worse still, Mr Sterckx’s report proposes a new phase of liberalisation, envisaging not only a single European airspace, a proposal worth considering, but associating this inevitably with the privatisation of air traffic control. Even the United States of America has not privatised its air traffic control agency. It remains subject to the federal authority of the Federal Republic of the United States of America. Even the home of liberalism did not go for this option. One would have to be totally unaware of the deterioration in the safety of British transport systems, and the recurrence of accidents related to the privatisation of this means of transport, not to realise that, in terms of safety, there is nothing better than a public service. Yet the choice made in this report is quite different, in fact the opposite, the complete antithesis. I think that Europe is probably now, more so than before, in need of the confidence of its constituent nations, and that a new phase of liberalisation would run counter to the latter’s expectations. They make this quite clear on a regular basis. A subsequent return of liberalism will come as no surprise."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph