Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-261"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.7.3-261"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and their shadows for all their hard work in dealing with this very technical report.
Although my delegation will be supporting a number of the amendments when we vote tomorrow, we will not be supporting those that reopen the debate concerning military operations. Unlike many colleagues, we consider it essential to retain the common position in this area, which now excludes the military dimension and which I understand is supported by the Commission. We will therefore oppose Amendments Nos 6 and 10 and, in addition, Amendment No 18 from the Fava report, which suggests the removal of military training from the text.
Military training is not covered under the term 'military operations'. It is essential that this be excluded from the scope of the regulation.
In addition, in Mrs Sanders-ten Holte's report, we also oppose Amendment No 25, due to its requirement that all air traffic in the EUIR should be known to air traffic service providers on military grounds.
With regard to Amendments Nos 29 and 30, the Council's position on the flexible use of airspace, which has been practised in the UK for many years, in my view offered important benefits and greater effectiveness across Europe.
On other matters, Amendment No 3 – which refers to the establishment of a reserve – is questionable on the issue of charges as this could create a provision for Member States' subsidies and would not, therefore, be a legitimate measure under Community law.
Concerning Amendments Nos 24 and 31, which concern the automatic move towards a single lower airspace flight information region: placing an automatic requirement on states to put one in place within five years is, quite frankly, premature and unrealistic.
With regard to Amendment No 21 on functional blocks of airspace, which proposes a centrally-planned top-to-bottom approach: I believe this overlooks local requirements."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples