Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.12.2-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly no easy task to have to draft a report on ones own country because one is all too subjective. However, I shall endeavour to paint as objective a picture as I can. I should start by clarifying that, when Austria negotiated its accession to the European Union, it asked for the content and substance of the Transit Agreement to be taken over in a protocol and hence be made part of its accession and its standing under the Treaty once it acceded to the European Union.
The Transit Agreement is without doubt doubly important because transit traffic in Austria – and this is a unique situation in the whole of the European Union – accounts for a very high proportion of overall traffic – up to 80% on many routes – and, because of Austria's geographical position and the fact that it is a relatively small country, it contributes to a relatively heavy environmental impact, especially in sensitive zones. In addition, it is an area with practically no added value of its own. Obviously, transit traffic cannot be separated from other types of traffic in the long term. That is why the Transit Agreement has an expiry date of 2003, which is fast approaching.
Now the Commission does not like this agreement. I can understand that it might not please everyone because, from a traffic policy point of view, it is far from perfect. The Commission has tried various ways of sinking this agreement. First it opined that the sanction mechanism was too heavy. I admit that the Commission is materially right, I too understand that. That is why I have taken account of Uli Stockmann's suggestion and my point 2 c) states that we in Parliament take the view that a better, sliding scale needs to be found.
Then the Commission said that the calculation did not work correctly in Austria. I am not in a position to judge, it is a question of establishing the facts. We decided in committee to call on the Commission to ensure that the calculations are correct because I for one do not want to sanction erroneous calculations. But then the Commission decided that the sanction mechanism was all wrong, the calculations were all wrong and, if that does not work, then we are also opposed to the upper ceiling.
But clearly the upper ceiling for transit lorries was part of the agreement from the outset. A provisional finding of the European Court of Justice states that this was a basic element in the transit agreement. Nor is it true, as the Commission maintains, that this is, to a certain extent, a negative incentive to use environmentally-friendly vehicles. Every haulier is better off using environmentally-friendly vehicles because he needs to use fewer ecopoints. That is why, if nothing else, this regulation motivates hauliers to use more favourable, i.e. more environmentally-friendly vehicles.
Which is why I completely fail to understand why such a sustained attack is being mounted on an existing agreement which, anyway, is due to expire shortly. Nor do I understand, Commissioner, why it is being mounted at a time when the Commission knows that Austria will have to reckon with a serious increase in transit traffic during the course of forthcoming enlargement. I can gladly let you have a copy of the study by an independent economic institute concluding that, by the year 2015 – and I know that is a long way off – transit traffic will have increased four- to fivefold. What I mean is that, in this situation, knowing that people are very sensitive to traffic issues, to change an existing agreement in this situation in order to create a different situation for perhaps one to one and a half years, is totally incomprehensible to me.
I should like to reiterate that this is not, in our view, about passing a new regulation. It is not about introducing additional restrictions. It is simply about leaving an existing agreement in place and let's face it, the principle of trust always applies when agreements are signed. I must repeat, this is predominantly about not adding fuel to the fire at a sensitive time when the question of enlargement is writ large, because we know where that can lead.
Naturally my recommendation is that we accept the report tomorrow as it was adopted in committee – albeit, I admit, by a very narrow majority, if one can talk of majorities at all here. Commissioner, I know you will be unable to agree but I should like to ask one favour of you, nonetheless: if, and this might easily be the case, Parliament decides otherwise and rejects my proposal, could you perhaps think twice about forcing it through? Could you use the precarious, sensitive situation in this country, which is also important for negotiations with candidate countries, as an opportunity for finding a long-term solution, rather than forcing through a short-term solution?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples