Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.5.3-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell Mr Lehne, as he made explicit reference to it, that we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance did not find this text an easy one to deal with. He will recall that we, as part of our coordination on Lisbon, introduced many amendments into the debate, but, on the points where we thought it necessary to make the text more concrete, we did not hesitate to list what we saw as its potential breaking points. Let me remind you that, when we in the steering committee began to debate this text, we agreed that it would profit us nothing to have only general agreement, but that this House would have to make of the Lisbon process something more concrete. That is still the Group of the Greens’ position.
For example, we do believe that an agreement on the freedom to provide services in the European Union is really necessary. If I may be frank, the impression I get is that the Bolkestein directive basically refers to the realities in the old European Union and that it fails to address the great challenges in terms of social convergence, including that of preventing social dumping, that await us following the creation of the larger European Union that we now have.
For that reason, I take Chancellor Schroeder’s, and President Chirac’s, statements seriously. I believe that this directive must be withdrawn, and that the Socialists in this House will support our amendment. If, for example, you do not want the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks to be disappointed in their hopes that this Europe would actually bring them social progress, or if you do not want Europe to be associated, in the West, only with social decline, then you cannot vote in favour of the Bolkestein directive as it stands. For us, that is a breaking point in this text. We would have expected this House to come to an agreement on it.
Concerning myself as I do with environmental and energy policy, I was delighted to see that many general blocks of text on sustainability have been incorporated into the draft that we are to vote on today. I do, though, refuse to accept that these blocks of text are fit only for pious platitudes on Lisbon and that everything will be forgotten again when, for example, we vote in the Committee on Agriculture on such things as REACH, the research Framework Programme or genetically modified organisms.
I therefore believe that the Greens’ rejection is well founded, and we will continue, in the months to come, to debate with you on the future of social justice, a proper approach to the environment, and innovations, with reference to the actual projects concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples