Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.7.3-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my group is keen on removing unnecessary border restrictions in railway traffic. Moreover, from the point of view of the environment, space occupation, safety and working conditions, we would like to see a great deal of freight, which is currently being transported by road, transferred to rail. This removal can best be achieved by reaching sound agreements among the EU Member States.
This is why we consented to the agreements made by the Council in December 1999 at the end of the Finnish Presidency. These agreements provided for through trans-national corridors and for sufficient exemption and transitional provisions in order to lift possible drawbacks in good time. Unfortunately, the majority of Parliament believed that this arrangement was inadequate and that instead, liberalisation and privatisation should be brought more to the fore.
This opinion fits in with a fashion trend which has led to a neo-liberal stampede against public services, public companies and organised employees, especially in the sectors of postal services, rail and energy supply. Those were companies that could prove to us that we can organise our economy in a more democratic, environmentally-friendly and less profit-orientated manner, but that are now being forced to attend to the pursuit of profit and competition.
Advocates of liberalisation consider rail as an awkward state monopoly with irritating and demanding trade unions. But the alternative could lead to chaos and conflict of interests and to new monopolies without any democratic control. Liberalisation could, of course, benefit private companies that can gain more freedom and more opportunities to tap into fresh income, but that does not guarantee a choice in favour of more environmentally-friendly modes of transport. Considerable disadvantages could arise, on the other hand, within existing railway companies, for their staff and for the democratic decision-taking with regard to their future transport policy.
Consequently, in this case my group was more on the side of the Council than the majority of this Parliament. Therefore, if it had been up to my group, this conciliation would not have taken place. Despite this, I took part in it, taking the view that irreconcilable positions would block a positive outcome, and that it is also not a good idea for the Finnish compromise to be withdrawn.
Although I have voted against the direction previously opted for by Parliament on 22 November, I called on the parliamentary delegation to reach a compromise. When that was achieved, I abstained from voting out of regard for this procedure, just as the majority of my group will do tomorrow at the final vote. The outcome of this conciliation will lead to more liberalisation than we deem useful, but less than threatened to be the case initially. Moreover, I fear that this conciliation package will soon be overtaken by liberalisation plans from the European Commission which go even further, and which my group will be unable to endorse."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples