|
Marine engines
do not pollute
 Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
 Part 4
Article by
Alfredo Gennaro
|
|
DELENDA CARTHAGO
OR WITHDRAW THE PROPOSAL
Under the same title, our article in the May issue of
Nautica cited facts to prove how pointless and dangerous it
would be to pass a European Directive regulating gas and
noise emissions of recreational marine engines. It is a
Directive that a group of lobbies headed by ICOMIA (the
International Council of Marine Industry Associations) is
fervently supporting, for reasons which are not clear, and
with interests which are less clear still.
Cato shouted two words as he entered the Roman Senate each
day: delenda Carthago, Carthage must be destroyed. We will
follow his example and shout the same message for as long as
we are able, a message we hope will be the Waterloo for those
seeking to do Europe harm and to introduce useless rules that
nobody asked for. Costly and non productive as they are,
such rules would ultimately hit small enterprise hardest,
strangling it in red tape, in complicated requirements for
conformity and in lost investment.
We have received much support for our previous article, and
many have expressed agreement with our stated views.
Published on the Internet and distributed at the SATEC in S.
Margherita Ligure in Italian and in English, the article
matched the positions of some other EC members and it might
yet lead to the articulation of a European consensus of
opinion, and to the unanimous support most certainly not
received by the proposal.
In the previous article we set out in detail our
suspicions. The decision of the Swedish President of the
Committee not to vote on the proposal because of the total
disagreement of the member states has served to confirm our
suspicions and strengthen our determination. The Swedish
President will pass everything to the next President, from
Belgium, who will probably deal with the issue in September.
We are pleased that member states have started to realise
that the directive is pointless, but at the same time we are
conscious this is a delicate moment. We must not let our
guard down, nor allow our action to lessen or peter out: the
supporters of the proposal feel we are now close to the
truth, which apart from leading to the withdrawal of the
proposal, will reveal the games they have been playing.
Incapable in fact of explaining the reasons for or the
advantages of the proposed directive, Tim Donkin, acting on
behalf of ICOMIA of which he is secretary, allows himself to
be hysterically overcome, making insinuations about those who
use sound argument to fight the proposal. We do not know how
far ICOMIA's behaviour is representative of the European
contingent (and of UCINA as far as Italy is concerned),
whose stance should in fact carry considerable weight: anyhow
ICOMIA has been forced to make public apologies, for those
insinuations, to the English colleague who, like us, is
guilty only of opposing the directive.
We consider this kind of reaction unjustifiable. It
compares unfavourably with our sound and unchallenged
arguments. And we still have not received answers to certain
fundamental questions:
- is there anything wrong with the European leisure boating
industry as it is now?
- now that Directive 94/25, which was complicated enough in
itself, has been more-or-less assimilated, where is the need
for adding complications that nobody wants?
- against what dangers will the directive defend us?
- what are the advantages of new tests, requirements for
conformity, investment and expenses?
- will low level bureaucrats, as they invent ever more
absurd procedures or impose unaffordable investments, ever
understand that the leisure boating industry depends upon
small enterprise, where, if need be, the owner is proud also
to be the accountant, the driver, the receptionist? Is it
thinkable that such enterprises could survive a decade in the
red?
We continue to ask ourselves these questions, but this time
we also had the opportunity of putting them to Dr. Fabio
Colasanti, Director of the EÙs DG Enterprise.
After the article we published in May, we were afraid Mr
Colasanti would not have wanted to talk to us and listen to
our point of view, but we are extremely happy to report we
were wrong.
Mr Colasanti seemed unconcerned about the letter Tim Donkin
had sent him in ICOMIA's name, and discounted the possibility
of inside plots being able to influence his decisions. He
listened to us, carefully and for a long time.
We did not have enough time to fill him in on all that has
happened over the last few years, when he did not hold the
position he now does. But the time he took to listen to us
with interest and attention was enough for us to prove, with
totally verifiable facts, the reasons for our opposition and
determination in calling for the proposal to be withdrawn.
We could, and maybe should, have told him about obscure
intrigues and undeclared interests, about cover-ups designed
to be effective and unquestionable, about the lobby's
arrogance.
We finally decided to tell him about the Europe in which we
believe, where, with the common agreement of truly
representative parties, experts prepare Directives honestly
and transparently. Directives which are respectful of the
environment: which regulate in order to avoid problems, which
remove technical barriers, improve exchange, free markets and
support enterprises - particularly small and medium
enterprises, the warp and weft of the European economy. These
Directives can not, nor must not, constrain the final user,
whose fundamental individual freedom, particularly in the use
of the sea, must be preserved.
And for all of these reasons we insist, as did Cato :
the proposal must be withdrawn
Part
1 |
2 |
3 |
4
|
