Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.3.2-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to exchange views with Parliament on issues that are at the forefront of our concerns. On 12 October, when Parliament expressed its wish to have this debate, I made myself available on the very same day and I was ready to go to Parliament the same evening. Unfortunately it was not possible to make a suitable agenda arrangement. I am glad that it is now possible to have this discussion.
I hope that all those who are for social solidarity, social cohesion and economic cohesion will fight for the ambitious financial perspectives and active social and economic cohesion policy we need in an enlarged Europe. We need to promote union, not artificial boundaries.
Let me now give the floor to Commissioner McCreevy. As you know, as the Commissioner for the Internal Market he has special responsibility for defending the internal market principles that are enshrined in our Treaties.
This debate was triggered by a case pending in the Swedish and European courts. It concerns what is known as the Laval case. I realise that there are strong political sensitivities on all sides and difficult issues to be dealt with. I have personally discussed this case with the Prime Ministers of Sweden and Latvia and I am fully aware of the importance that is attached to it.
The Commission is still waiting for the European Court to forward to us the question referred for a preliminary ruling. We will then examine the case carefully and submit our views in an
brief to the Court, as we do in all proceedings of this kind.
Obviously, once the Court has given its judgment the Commission is at the disposal of all parties to analyse the situation and possible solutions as required. Given that it was possible to find equitable solutions in other situations, of which the posting of workers directive is but one example, the Commission remains convinced that it is possible to reconcile the four freedoms under the European Treaties with the different social models chosen by the Member States. The role of the Commission is to ensure that both the social
and the internal market legislation are respected and fully implemented in all Member States, without discrimination.
As a matter of principle, the Commission respects the different social models chosen by the Member States. It recognises that the Swedish model has a successful record of combining high employment with flexibility for companies and also with social justice. The Swedish system is clearly a model which provides adaptability in a globalised society. In particular the Commission acknowledges that, in view of its successful record, Sweden did not feel it necessary to request transitional periods for the access of workers from the new Member States to the Swedish labour market.
The issues raised must also be seen in their broader economic and political context. They demonstrate the need to advance our agenda for growth and jobs in order to achieve stronger social and economic cohesion.
As I said at the beginning, this debate was triggered by a court case. First and foremost we should wait for the court to deliver its judgment. Let me make it clear: this Parliament is not a court, it is a political body and a political debate is needed. This is a matter of substance, not just of legal interpretation. The essential questions are clear. Are we for or against solidarity in an enlarged Union? Are we for or against economic and social cohesion to reduce imbalances in a Union of 25 members? Are we for or against the free movement of workers, with full respect for the national legislation and social frameworks of the Member States? Are we for or against a European budget capable of effectively promoting economic and social cohesion? Those are the questions that lie behind this debate and on which we need to express our views.
We have to be prepared for cases like this in the future. In an enlarged Union, these problems might well arise. It is interesting to recall that in 1986, when Spain and Portugal became members of the European Community, Spanish and Portuguese workers were seen as a threat by many of the existing European Community members. The solution was not protection within each market but the promotion of economic and social cohesion. The general issue, therefore, is how we reduce imbalances and actively promote prosperity, so that our Union is really united and has no artificial divisions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples