Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-020"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Competition between postal services2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001213.1.3-020"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-13-Speech-3-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Hélène Flautre2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-12-16--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the legislative proposal before us concludes a high-quality parliamentary debate which testifies, if indeed it were necessary, to Parliament’s irreplaceable role in voicing the opinions of European citizens and giving expression to the diversity of experience from one region to another. If the voices of users and consumers, the postal workers and the unions are listened to, if attention is paid to the concerns of the public authorities and of local councillors and if account is taken of the opposition voiced by a number of governments to this development, then it might well be wondered where Commissioner Bolkestein’s proposal has come from, so unrealistic and unworkable does it appear to be. How was the Commission, which is supposed to represent the overall interests of Europe, able to propose a development so contrary to what is called for by the relevant players? Is there a certain kind of ultra-liberal dogmatism that makes one particularly blind and deaf? How has the Commission been able to avoid assessing the previous stage before proposing moving on to the next stage? All it would seem to have drawn from the Lisbon conclusions is about how to pursue liberalisation by means of directives, while the emphatic reference to the role of services of general interest is at present reflected only in communications and statements. However, we know that guaranteeing equal high-quality access to everyone everywhere requires tariff equalisation to be maintained and a certain number of services to be kept for those providing a universal service. The right to innovation should also be guaranteed so as to take account of changing needs, the consequences of the development of the information society and the fight which may be required to ensure that no one is excluded from this society. I think it would be logical to reverse the burden of proof rather than always have to justify exceptions to the sacrosanct principle of the internal market. It would be more in keeping with citizens’ expectations to restore the balance where public services are concerned by making any new extension to the commercial sphere conditional upon respect for the fundamental objective of the sustainable development of European society."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph