Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.8.3-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, you want to build the internal market on purely commercial principles and with fiscal and regulatory competition, when an efficient internal market in accordance with the European social model requires the creation of public assets and a substantial harmonisation of the rules at European level. In order to impose your views, you tend to use the cutlass method.
I would like to take my turn to say that the directive on services represents a real danger, a poison for the European Union. You want liberalisation in all areas, while in January 2004 Parliament again rejected the liberalisation of the education, health, social services and water sectors. You want to remove the exclusive rights for services of general economic interest and impose the rules of public markets, while Parliament has asked for these services to have a legal codecision framework and given its opinion in favour of a right of autoproduction for public organisations. You want to extend the principle of mutual recognition and the application of the law of the supplier’s country of origin across the board. This can only cause ill-feeling and disputes. The only method that can unite Europeans would involve establishing common positive criteria in the different sectors of the internal market by codecision, which would produce harmonisation rules in accordance with our social model.
I must also highlight the lack of consultation of civil society in your practice. This is largely responsible for the bad quality of texts and for the large number of disputes. The Lamfalussy method for financial services is much more participative than the one that you use in other areas where you seek to obtain a blank cheque to eliminate regulatory barriers. Nevertheless, the Lamfalussy method is handicapped by many inadequacies that we wish to overcome: the lack of a right of call-back for Parliament, insufficient economic analyses and consultations that are still largely limited to professionals.
For all these reasons, I beseech my colleagues – and I have already written to them all to this effect – to re-establish the political line in Parliament in favour of the social market economy. This line was sacrificed at the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. In order to re-establish it, we need to adopt the amendments tabled by Messrs Miller and Ortega."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples