Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.3.4-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot begin a debate on this subject without remembering the ten latest victims claimed by the St Gotthard tunnel, and Mr Fischler was quite right to pay tribute to them, but we must also remember that, this very morning, yet another incident took place in the Petit St Bernard tunnel. It seems almost to be an unfortunate coincidence, placing a greater onus on us, now that we are preparing to debate the proposal and the timeliness of whether or not to reopen the Mont Blanc tunnel.
As I shall say later, I have no doubts on the matter, but there are many considerations I must air before I make this statement. First of all, the St Gotthard accident is directly connected with the one in the Mont Blanc tunnel, where, as everyone will remember, 39 people lost their lives on 24 March 1999, but there is an even more direct link than just the similarity between the two accidents, which it is only right to recall. It is a link of cause and effect: it seems clear to everybody that the mass of traffic that the Mont Blanc has not been able to cater for during the two and a half years or so since it closed has inevitably shifted to other Alpine passes, starting with the St Gotthard itself, which in turn is now closed, and then the Brenner and the Tarvisio and the whole Alpine arc, which, in short, has absorbed the surplus traffic that used to go through the Mont Blanc tunnel before it was closed.
It is clear, therefore, that the cause of the accident can be quite easily identified and predicted, given the situation. Alongside the negative effect of the accidents, however, there is, of course, another negative effect, which is the impact on the environment. Heavy vehicles, especially those crossing an Alpine pass, certainly have an environmental cost that nobody would want to pay. Quite rightly, therefore, people have started discussing the subject of the Mont Blanc tunnel, particularly in the last couple of days, and proposals have been made to try to prevent the tunnel from reopening and thus protect the land around it.
I must say that I totally disagree with this proposal, although I understand the legitimate aspirations of those living in a particular area to protect their environment. This proposal, however, not only contravenes the Treaty – in that it would violate a fundamental principle, that of the free movement of goods, persons and so on – but I would say it is also an ethical violation. By closing the Mont Blanc tunnel or keeping it closed, one is in fact just shifting an ecological problem from one part of the Alps to another; we would just be shifting the problem from the Mont Blanc region to the Fréjus region, to Switzerland, and to the Brenner and Tarvisio routes, as I said before, which does not seem right to me. I ask those who advocate this solution: what kind of proposal is this? What has become of the spirit of Alpine solidarity? What has become of the feeling of belonging to the Community, to the European Union? On the other hand, as the Commissioner has also reminded us, the opening of the Mont Blanc tunnel will certainly be accompanied by special safety arrangements. It goes without saying that, in addition to the environmental damage, there is also the economic damage that we have a duty to consider here: during the two and a half years that it has been closed, it has been calculated that Italy alone has lost EUR 1 500 million, and the Val d’Aosta region will have seen its own regional gross domestic product fall by 10 %. France, too, has probably had losses comparable to these: perhaps Mrs Grossetête will tell us, as I know she is to speak afterwards and she lives in that part of the world.
We must not be ashamed to talk about the economic aspect as well, since the Mont Blanc tunnel, like all passes through the Alps, responds to demands which are not solely economic but may be expressed in economic terms, and which need to be met to enable the various nations, citizens and groups operating in the fields of industry, trade and tourism to carry on their activities. All this serves not only the countries on either side of the border but also and especially more distant countries – I am thinking of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany – whose traffic inevitably has to cross the Alps, which are today almost closed off and practically impassable.
It is also clear that the Italian and the French authorities have, at last, found a common language in which to propose solutions
and have invested almost EUR 300 million, the burden being shared equally by the two countries, to ensure safety. It is said that once this tunnel has been restored – which I hope will be very soon – it will be the safest in the world, with features that I will not repeat now because they have already been mentioned by the Commissioner himself.
Now we need to take one further step: to speed up the bureaucratic and technical process to complete the Munich-Verona link, which means the Brenner tunnel, and the Lyon-Turin link, which means the Fréjus tunnel. These are priority projects. I shall end, Mr President, by reminding the House that there is a new proposal that might help: the Aosta-Martigny rail link, which starts in Milan, is not one of the European priorities but could be included if France and Italy take the matter up. By the way, I shall close with some news: tomorrow the Italian Minister, Mr Lunardi, and his French counterpart, Mr Gayssot, will be meeting to agree on a date to reopen the Mont Blanc tunnel, which I hope will be very, very soon."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples