Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-04-Speech-2-368"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060704.34.2-368"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I think this moment represents a step forward where this dossier is concerned. Although it is certainly true that we have been working on it for a long time, we are now close to an agreement that can enable us to raise safety to a high standard and make competition between airlines more honest.
The question now arises of whether the compromise that is on the table is a good one. We all know – and a couple of us have already said so – that it is not ideal, but there are times when the best is the enemy of the good. Right now, though, we have to take what we can get, for there is indeed something to be said for the compromise that is now before us: there is no levelling-down, there are rules for the cabin crew, rules for night flights by freight carriers, and results as soon as possible from the EASA study – after two years instead of after three.
We now have to seize the opportunity to move forward two steps at once. First, we must now approve the compromise, and I was glad to hear Mr Savary say just now that, if the compromise is approved, we should not take matters any further. Once we have approved the compromise, we will have a European basis on which we can work, on which the Commission, moreover, can begin to work, but then for everyone rather than for the limited number of Member States that can allow themselves higher standards. That is the first step.
The second step will then be that, once, European rules are in place, we can improve them and work on certain aspects of them, so that – and let me repeat: not just for certain Member States who can allow themselves that sort of thing – the standard can be raised. This is the way we have to do it – in these two stages. If we miss out the first, if we fail to make the compromise, we cannot go any further.
I understand very well the criticism levelled by some members of specific categories of personnel and the questions that they raise, for those questions have to do with safety, but when I asked them, ‘would you rather have this than nothing?’ they answered every time: ‘No, no, we want something!' I think the rapporteur has done everything possible to move all the boundaries as far as possible. The possibility that we now have of concluding a compromise and to start out with a Europe-wide regulation constitutes an opportunity that we must seize whatever else we do.
If we reject the compromise, I am convinced – as are the shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteur – that we will be left with nothing, and that we will be even further away from the objective that we want to reach. I would, in any case, like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur, and also to the Commissioner for the work he has put in.
I think it is a pity that the Council is unwilling to move further on a number of points and is holding fast to a sort of reasoning that I do not find readily comprehensible, but, if the compromise that we have hammered out is approved, there is no risk whatever of us ending up empty-handed and making the situation worse rather than better, so, thank you, Mr Savary, and thanks to all the other Members, and I think we can look forward to a good result tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples