Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.3.3-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, thank you for your courageous work. Thank you, Mr Rübig, we have reached a good conclusion, we have a compromise and we have set an historic precedent.
We in the European Parliament have acted with unusual unity in order to break a taboo. The taboo of regulating the market at European level in such an important area as telecommunications. Yes, in this process we have given the European citizens a practical example of what the European Union is for.
We support the compromise despite the fact that it falls short for consumers in certain respects. Because the European Parliament has spoken out against the outrageous robbing of users, who pay scandalous tariffs and are not even told what they pay. We have stood up for consumers. We have reached a fairish compromise, but it is not entirely fair for consumers.
There will be lower prices for the majority, but they could have been considerably lower. There will be much more transparency and information. It could just have been a bit better for existing customers, but during the negotiations and during the trialogue we have seen some of the more positive aspects of the European institutions and some of the more negative ones.
We have seen two opposing positions in this debate. On the one hand, Parliament has generally defended the interests of its voters, the consumers, and on the other, the Council – the Member States – have vigorously defended the commercial interests of the big operators, of the national champions, of the ‘telecoms’ and the ‘telefónicas’.
Why have the MEPs, who represent the same majorities as their governments in the Council, in the Member States, defended such entirely different positions?
There is no question that the same transparency — the same complete openness — is needed in the Council as we have here in this House, because there – in the Council — the asphyxiating pressure of the industrial lobbies has had a great influence on this issue and has restricted our ability to reach an even better agreement.
We support this agreement insofar as it is a step forward. It is a step forward that sets the precedent of being able to regulate a market which has not been able to regulate itself in a fair manner. This Parliament is showing the way. We also have to learn from this experience in order to create European institutions that are increasingly transparent, open and accessible to the interests of the majority of the citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples