Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.4.1-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second time that the Commission has tried to concern itself with matters that do not actually have to be regulated at European level. That is what is at the heart of this report, and that is what we have to grapple with. Is today's free movement of goods disrupted by national restrictions on journeys? I will tell you quite clearly that such is not the case, for if it were, the Commission would be entitled even now to take action against the Member States in the European Court of Justice. It has not done so to date, and so no disruption of the free movement of goods can have occurred.
Secondly, we will never manage to harmonise Europe's public holidays. That too is indeed part of the regulation. I do not imagine that France, that
will ever let anyone prevent it celebrating 14 July, and we in Germany will also resist any attempt at doing away with 3 October. What this means is that we have different rules on travel restrictions as it is, because our public holidays are different.
Thirdly, it was as long ago as 1998 that the Commission, guided by your predecessor Mr Kinnock, proposed to limit the travel ban to Sundays, and that is the direction they are actually going in. Hence it is not on for us, when we vote today or tomorrow, to agree to the European Union being given the right to enact regulations of any kind on travel bans. These are things that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, must not be regulated other than at the level of the Member States, nor, indeed, can they be.
That is why we have started an initiative across group and national lines and tabled an amendment to reject the Commission proposal. I would like to ask my fellow Members of this House to vote in favour of this amendment. The European added value in this is not self-evident. There is no European added value, because the derogations in the proposal are such that nothing will change in real terms. If this is all about making information available, then it goes without saying that the Commission is entitled to set up information systems as appropriate without drafting legislation. My dear Commissioner, it is simply not enough for all the public holidays in the European Union just to be announced in the Official Journal. If the establishment of information systems is what it is all about, then you have my entire support, but that is something the Commission can do on its own responsibility without resorting to a directive. That is what I would ask you to do, so that the regulations prevailing in the individual Member States can be made known to everyone throughout the European Union who will be affected by them.
My last point is that this is also about preventing the proliferation of derogations. It is right that perishable goods, and foodstuffs in particular, should be excluded from the restrictions. It is not, however, clear to me what added value accrues to us if cut flowers can also be transported on Saturdays and Sundays, – in summer, moreover, when everything is in bloom anyway – and can also be transported on Saturdays in winter. So let us, I beg you, vote against this proposal. Let us allow the Member States to decide on it for themselves in compliance with the subsidiarity principle, and then we will also have the public behind us in European matters."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples