Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.2.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are actually debating a regulation on the negotiation and conclusion of air service agreements. This heralds the end of a dispute that has exercised the Commission and the Member States for years, a dispute which unfortunately was not resolved politically at a time when this would still have made sense, but which finally had to be as it were set aside by virtue of a ruling of the European Court of Justice.
In the past, the Member States continued to conclude bilateral air service agreements, which led to the internal market – which we had already made a reality in 1992 – being annulled in the air transport sector, ultimately reducing and restricting the opportunities and possibilities open to the Member States' airlines. It is therefore logical – and I fully agree with this – for our finally to have a Community agreement between the European Union and the United States, so that, competing as a European continent, we can use the opportunities that the USA has already been using for years in our Member States.
I do not quite follow the Commission's comments and have also made this clear in my report: the Commission referred, no doubt partly out of annoyance and partly out of frustration after years of trying to persuade the Council to give it a negotiating mandate, to illegality, and in so doing it may now have thrown the baby out with the bathwater! If Commissioner Barnier said that the Council had already more or less accepted that in the future Member States would have to present the results of their bilateral negotiations for approval, then I think we are a long way from what we have discussed so intensively in the past and have also written in the Constitutional Treaty, namely from the principle of subsidiarity. Even allowing for the annoyance and the exuberance, I certainly cannot go along with the Commission's approach here, that it is now trying to treat the Member States like small children in what is after all an important issue for the national airlines.
I am not disputing the fact that in the future the Community will have to lead the negotiations in certain areas, that is right and proper, not least because of the equivalence that needs to be established. As you rightly pointed out, however, there are over 2000 national bilateral air service agreements and these air service agreements will have to be developed further, they will have to be maintained and new ones will have to be added to their number. I think it is right and proper, where there is no obligation and no need for a Community agreement, to leave these in the sovereignty of the Member States. That these national agreements obviously have to be in accordance with Community law is, as I see it, not in question, but it is unacceptable for the spontaneity and sovereignty of the Member States to be restricted in such a way that, for each agreement, they not only, as it were, have to report that the negotiations have started, but also present the results and have them approved by the Commission.
I will say again very clearly that I have tried to put this in a slightly different way in my report, and I have not gone along with the Commission's proposal, which has been made once again clearly by Commissioner Barnier. I think that the Commission should restrict itself to those areas where there is a need for the Community to negotiate, and that otherwise the Member States should continue to have the right to negotiate, obviously subject to Community law and the Commission's right, if need be, to intervene.
I am confident, when I say a dispute is drawing to an end, that at the latest at the second reading a solution will be found that is acceptable to the Council, the Commission and Parliament. Until recently talks were still being held to achieve this, because there is a willingness on all sides to give a little more ground. The Member States are prepared to accept committing themselves to incorporating certain standard clauses in future air service agreements, and I therefore think that we will be able, despite our still differing starting positions, to settle this in good time to the mutual satisfaction of all parties.
I would like to address one final point, because of course next we will be moving straight on to the vote, and that is Amendment No 17. This amendment, which unfortunately – and I use the word advisedly – received majority support in the committee, states that the 'polluter pays' principle should play a role in future agreements. I wish to point out once more that the negotiation of air service agreements is concerned exclusively with which traffic rights are retained and which can be used and I have absolutely no idea what the 'polluter pays' principle is doing in an air service agreement about these traffic rights. Obviously we can write a great deal in regulations, but anything that does not belong there should be taken out again, because it is irrelevant in this context. That is why I would earnestly request that when the time comes you do not vote in favour of Amendment No 17."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples