Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.4.1-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Savary, you have done sterling work in the sense that, based on considerations pertaining to traffic safety, the environment and noise restrictions, it is excellent that a light form of harmonisation has been opted for. In my view, Mr Savary’s arguments concerning the legal basis – which is necessary because we may otherwise be facing legal battles – are sound. I also think it is important to maintain the status quo. I am saying this against the interests of my country and those of its transport sector. In this case, I take the view that the interests of the core countries should definitely prevail where the problems I described a moment ago are concerned.
The periphery, where, for that matter, the ports are situated and traffic originates in the first place, should adapt itself to this. And then it becomes abundantly clear that, if the free movement of goods is thought to be restricted, we should realise that there is always inland shipping, there is always railway transport and that there is always the option of short-sea. If you travel from the Netherlands to Italy, I would advise you to use short-sea. We are all working very hard on this. In my view, Mr Savary is right to introduce Amendment No 13. I would only suggest to him to re-insert the words “exceptional cases” which he has omitted, where restrictions are concerned, because this does put a brake on the whole thing. I shall leave it there, and to Mr Vermeer, I would suggest he take the train next time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples