Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.1.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteur for the tremendous work he has done under very difficult circumstances to bring this report to us today. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for what he said and for the effort which the Commission has made to accept amendments from Parliament. I know the Council is doing the same and is standing by waiting for us to adopt our opinion today, so that it can go ahead and adopt the employment guideline package.
That presupposes, however, that we will adopt this report today. In that respect, I would like to make an appeal to the PPE-DE Group, because that group has a tendency to seek revenge for the rejection of the Thomas Mann report on the spring summit some two months ago. That group has made it known that certain amendments are regarded as key amendments and if they are rejected in the House today then that group will vote to reject the whole employment guideline package. That would be a tremendously damaging blow. We have already dislocated the streamlined coordinated process, involving the employment and economic policy guidelines. I hope we can get the whole exercise back on track and I hope that group will pull back from this brinkmanship.
The amendments its members regard as key amendments are causing us some difficulties. For example, Amendment No 64 concerns the stability pact. They are placing considerable emphasis on that point. That is strange because not even Mr García-Margallo y Marfil from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs places such emphasis on this point in his report on the broad economic policy guidelines.
Amendment No 66 calls for a reduction in the overall tax burden on individuals and companies. A number of Members have made reference to this amendment already.
This is a fundamental ideological point and is causing some difficulty for a number of my members. The emphasis that the PPE-DE Group members are placing upon this suggests that they have a determination not to seek consensus and to look rather to create problems for the adoption of this package. This amendment on the overall reduction in the tax burden is incompatible with the one they have tabled on the stability pact and it also concerns an area of responsibility that is reserved for the Member States themselves.
I cannot believe that if that amendment were rejected the PPE-DE Group would reject the whole package but I am assured by Mr Mann that would be the case. I hope the group will pull back. Reluctantly I am urging my members to abstain on Amendment No 66 in the hope that it will get through – although I disagree with it. If I fail and they lose that amendment, I again would appeal to the PPE-DE Group to pull back and not reject this package. It is simply not worth it.
My final point, which is very important, is on Amendment No 23 on the social economy. Last month I mentioned in the debate on the Cooperative Statute that the social economy had disappeared from the employment guideline package. I hope we can bring it back in as a result of this amendment."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples