Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.3.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a helpful debate, in that it is clear even from the applause where this Commission stands. Far from it standing in the centre, in the middle ground of European politics, it has become apparent this morning that it – not all its Members, but Commissioner McCreevy and President Barroso – have taken up an unequivocal stance and set a right-wing, neo-liberal course, against which my Group campaigns – today, tomorrow and every other day.
The reason why we have demanded the President of the Commission’s and the Commissioner’s presence here is that this debate is about nothing more and nothing less than the question of in which direction we want to develop this European Union of ours, of what this European Union’s purpose is.
Europe’s citizens have their own worries and their own aspirations; these they address not only to us in this House, but also to the Commission. The people of Europe want employment, but not at the price of Chinese wages and Asian working conditions. They want living wages from secure jobs, an income with which they can achieve some sort of workable and secure future for themselves and for their children. That is what the European social model is, and that is what we want to defend.
What I hear from you, though, Mr McCreevy, is that the free market in Europe means that the lowest standards for incomes, the lowest standards for social security and the lowest standards for workers’ rights are the best way of promoting competition and growth and that they must prevail. No, that is the wrong way to go about it.
The European social model, which involves partnership between capital and labour, is a recipe for success. Let me repeat that we want to put our Latvian and Czech comrades in a stronger position; my colleague Mr Falbr, who is a Czech trade unionist, will shortly have something to say about that. European social policy cannot have the driving down of wages as its objective. Far from it: one of the effects of the EU’s structural policy is to unleash progress and economic growth in the new Member States, in the Baltic states, in Slovakia or Slovenia, and this technical advance, this process of economic growth, must be inseparable from the workers’ sharing in this growth, and what that means is higher wages and more trade union rights for the workers in those countries, rather than fewer rights in Sweden and lower and lower standards. That would be a system after Mr McCreevy’s heart, and we will not have it.
What we expect of you, Mr President of the Commission, is that you should now come out and say, once and for all, where you stand. Last week, you delivered a speech on social policy, in which you proposed, indeed demanded, the establishment of an intervention fund. That is something we support, with the proviso that such an intervention fund must not be used for the victims of Commissioner McCreevy’s policies. To that we are opposed.
I urge you to say once and for all what your Commission stands for; if you want to put your commitment to the European social model beyond doubt, then you must, at last, put the brakes on Charlie McCreevy, Neelie Kroes, and other members of your Commission. You have the means to do so, and if you do it, you can count on our support, but if your system is about continuing the downgrading of mobility and social standards in Europe, then your Commission will have to contend with the opposition of the Socialist Group in this House.
Yes, it is true to say that we welcome all the new states of the European Union – all of them. We Social Democrats are fighting for Romania and Bulgaria as well, and we urge you to do likewise, with the same dedication, but the one reason why we welcome them is that we want social progress in Europe and we want the social standards we have achieved to be secured. We do not want Swedish workers to be played off against their Latvian counterparts, but you do; that is how you go about destroying Europe.
In preparing us for today’s debate, the chairman of the European Socialist Party, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, recast this topic in the form of three simple questions. Those three questions I shall now put to you, and I want clear answers to them from you.
Here comes the first question, Mr President of the Commission: does the Commission take the view that trade unions – those in Sweden, for example – have the right to campaign in defence of collective agreements, which may involve them taking strike action?
Secondly, does the Commission take the view that the Nordic version of the social model is compatible with the rules of the internal market? I put this question to you, Mr Barroso, for to judge by what I hear Commissioner McCreevy saying, it is apparently not. The message we get from Commissioner McCreevy is that, in the event of his interpretation of Article 49 becoming accepted, there is no longer any room in Europe for the Swedish model. Our response to that, Mr McCreevy, is that your interpretation of Article 49 will not prevail in Europe, at any rate not while the Social Democrats in this House have any say in the matter.
The third question we want to put to you, Mr Barroso, is this: we need an unequivocal statement as to what the Commission’s position is in relation to the European Court of Justice in the Vaxholm case. Where, in fact, do you stand on that?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples