Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.7.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by expressing thanks to the rapporteurs, who – not only at first reading stage but also at the second – had, in essence, to start their work all over again after the Council was so eccentric as to reformulate the Common Position in such a way that it was impossible to tell which of Parliament’s amendments had been taken up and which had not.
One may well wonder whether this is just a haughtily offhand attitude, or whether there is a system at work here. I believe it to be the latter, because the Member States are simply unwilling to accept these undoubtedly forward-looking rules, but I will also make it abundantly clear that Parliament champions the cause of the Single Sky, one that will guarantee greater safety and also greater efficiency.
I would like to list four points that I believe should be regarded as essentials. Firstly, the military cannot be allowed to continue to dominate European airspace. This is about bringing about proper coordination, in which civil and military air operators are partners with equal rights, and with the certainty that they are able to cooperate with each other.
Secondly, in the air, too, the European patchwork must be done away with once and for all. Nobody, after all, can grasp how it is that we still have almost forty blocks of airspace in the skies above fifteen Member States long after land borders have been abolished. The issue of whose decision this should be is of the utmost importance, as the Member States have had enough time over the past decades to take the decision to create cross-border airspace blocks. They failed to do so, and so, I believe, the decision passes to the European level – to the Commission.
My third point is that we want air safety services to be cautiously opened up to the market.
My fourth is that we want mandatory harmonisation of both technology and of the training of air traffic controllers, as a means to making both technology and human resources mutually compatible.
Today marks the first anniversary of the terrible air disaster on Lake Constance. Whilst that has no direct connection with this regulation, it does indicate the potential dangers inherent in a multiplicity of airspace blocks, in which the airlines constantly have to announce their entry and exit, with all the potential for misunderstanding that is involved. What this means is that we have the responsibility of ensuring safety and efficiency.
If my judgment is correct, I can only say that my group will not be held responsible for regulations that do not end up giving real competence to the European level, along with the power to implement it. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Commission. Commissioner, I am somewhat surprised; you have narrowed the scope to some extent, and your staff were even more cautious, but, otherwise, on many aspects, you have demanded much more, and, if I may mention open skies, where you want all powers granted to you at once, you have suddenly started to hold back on this important issue.
I ask you to consider on which side you are fighting. Join forces with Parliament, so that we may have a common European sky, in the interests of the people in the countries from which we come."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples