Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-07-Speech-4-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020207.6.4-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The MPF delegation firmly supports the Galileo project for the implementation of a European satellite radionavigation programme, a system that will work parallel to yet independently of the American GPS system whilst maintaining ‘interoperability’, in other words, it will not work against this system and will permit the possibility for the two systems to work together.
The Galileo project seems exemplary for three reasons. From a technical point of view, it will have numerous positive effects for all economic activities and will increase Europe’s general productivity at a time when this is very much needed. From an institutional point of view, it is clear that a project on which there is Europe-wide cooperation would be justified with regard to subsidiarity, and that the European Space Agency (ESA) could provide the appropriate instrument for this. Finally, from a political and strategic point of view, the Galileo project will grant Europe independence from the United States while the acceptance of the GPS monopoly, on the other hand, would imply a tangible dependence that would increase over time.
In spite of these arguments, the final decision on the development of the Galileo project has been deferred from Council to Council, and the latest, held at Laeken, was no exception. It is already almost too late for a useful decision to be made.
Apart from the technical discussions on the precise procedures for the involvement of private partners, the true reason for the delay lies in the United States’ hesitation, which has influenced certain European countries. This brings us to the main issue: do Community procedures not slow the whole process down because they are too rigid and the partners are not all in agreement? These structures are acting like a brake now on the project’s launch and they will act like a brake tomorrow and at each stage of development, especially if we want to add military or ‘peacekeeping’ operations.
On this point, the European Parliament is frankly making a mistake in demanding an ever greater communitisation of the project, for example in estimating, in its resolution of 17 January, that “The ESA with its basis of intergovernmental cooperation should in the longer term be brought within the EU”. In truth, the opposite is the case: we need to apply the principle of variable geometry to Galileo, as for Airbus and Ariane, and create a structure that groups together only those States that are truly involved in the project. This would be the best way to pull this project out of the rut it is currently stuck in and make real progress."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples