Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.7.2-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Lambert’s report presents an entire set of extremely interesting measures. The main aim of the report is to ensure that persons moving within the EU do not suffer disadvantages in their social security rights. For those of us in this Parliament who hope that cultural and human exchanges increase in the context of the free movement of persons, this report really is a step in the right direction. The simplification of regulations, coordination, the harmonisation of procedures based on the application of the principle of equal treatment, which gives employees or self-employed persons from other Member States the same rights as the citizens of the state responsible, all contribute to European integration.
Some measures contained in the report are particularly noteworthy. Personally, I find that they are very much in step with the changes that have taken place in our societies. I am thinking in particular of the desire to treat maternity and paternity equally, the proposal seeking to include third-country nationals in the directive’s scope, and even the definition of the term ‘member of the household’ applying to unmarried partners in a long-term relationship, irrespective of sex.
Although I, together with my group, do support this report, I wish, Commissioner, to underline the paradox between the stated desires and the dangers of adopting measures less comprehensive than those provided by the social security systems in several European countries. France, Italy and Germany, for example, are about to implement or have already implemented reforms intended to break up existing social security systems, on the pretext that they have excessive budgetary deficits in terms of the Maastricht criteria. By extending the sphere of operations of private bodies, we will be moving towards a reduction of national assistance or even its total disappearance, which could prove extremely dangerous for the future. And yet, the principles and aims underpinning the creation of social security systems in Europe still apply, in the context of developing a European social model that has proved itself by enabling growth and improved living standards for decades.
I would add that these aims are all the more necessary given the increase in levels of precarity and poverty in Europe today. According to a recent Eurostat study, 15% of the Union’s inhabitants are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. If you take away all social transfers, this figure rises to 24% and the situation is in danger of worsening. The question facing us in Europe today goes far beyond establishing coordination, even though this is clearly crucial. What we are faced with is a real societal choice. Do we want a model of economic and social development that is equitable and provides assistance, which will enable us to stimulate growth, or will we take the route of allowing all social systems to disappear, at the risk of allowing the number of people in a precarious situation, the poor and the marginalised to skyrocket? Choosing the first option would require a genuine form of European social governance to be established, based on a form of downward harmonisation. This would clearly also involve reviewing the Maastricht criteria."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples