Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.8.3-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I do not believe that Mr Rack, or other Austrian Members can claim the moral high ground. That is simply false. If you argue along those lines, we will one day organise demonstrations to blockade Austria, preventing you from getting out and infringing our rights. The same laws must apply to all in the Community, and it is not acceptable that the Austrians should claim privileges.
Let me give you a simple example. If you travel through Austria – to Hungary via Linz and Vienna – in terms of the topography involved, that is exactly the same as when Swedes and Danes travel to Rotterdam via Hamburg. Do those who live in the lower-lying parts of Austria have more of an entitlement to special rules than do those in other countries through which transit routes pass? Never could you justify such a thing!
We are all in favour of vulnerable parts of the Alps being protected, but are you entitled to have the vulnerable parts of the Austrian Alps enjoy protection different to that enjoyed by those in France or Italy? If we are to introduce special rules for vulnerable areas, they must apply to all of them. There is, however, no privilege for Austria on the grounds of its citizens being of more value than the citizens of Italy or France. In moral terms, Austrians have no greater entitlement.
Mr Swoboda was right to point out that we are trying to improve the environment for everyone. That is why, with reference to the changed charges for road use, Parliament has demanded that the burdens be more widely spread, dependent on the emission level. The Council has not gone along with our idea of this broader spread, so now we are going through the same rigmarole with them all over again. In December, it came up with this wretched compromise – which I will call a sham solution rather than a compromise – and, after ignoring our arguments at first reading stage, re-adopted the nonsense from December. So it is the Council that obstructs every sensible solution!
I hope, Madam Vice-President, that you will shortly put before us a revised version of the rules on the charges for road use and that we will make distinctions along ecological lines as well. That, though, is how rules work; we have to set uniform standards for all parts of the European Union without laying down special rules for Austria.
I therefore ask our Austrian fellow-Members to be a little more reflective. Austria cannot get on its moral high horse when no work has been done on building the Brenner tunnel since the 1996 decision on the trans-European networks was taken. It is just not on! The Dutch transport minister, Mrs Karla Peijs, has recently tried to achieve a consensus with the Council – and what have we heard? The Austrians reject anything of the sort. Whenever there have been discussions, the Austrian transport minister has waited two days before coming out with the same old nonsense.
Along with most of the Members of this House, my plea is that we should seek the sensible compromise for which we are all ready."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples