Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.3.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, my group naturally supports the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in the dispute that has brought it into conflict with Mr McCreevy and with the Commission in general. How could we, on the left, accept a concept of Europe founded on creating competition among workers and on organising social dumping? It is exactly this kind of policy that we have in mind when we say ‘no’ to liberal Europe. What really grates is the fact that that brutal agitator, Mr McCreevy, and all those who share his opinions unfortunately can rely on rules in force in the EU in giving their support to a Latvian business claiming not to know about Sweden’s system of collective agreements and in applying more restrictive social standards.
The provision to which, in this case, the Latvian service provider and its promoters in Brussels are referring is called mutual recognition, which was introduced into Community law, via the case law of the Court of Justice, in 1979 for the free circulation of goods and was then expanded to incorporate services around 15 years ago. This is a strategic choice. Instead of legislating on upwards social harmonisation, the market and competition are being allowed to pull the social
downwards: in Community jargon, this is what is known as better regulation.
Moreover, the Commission issued in 1999 a communication to Parliament and to the Council that was extremely explicit on this matter. I quote: ‘The application of mutual recognition is fully consistent with the Single Market philosophy according to which the rules of the Member State of origin normally prevail, and the Member State of destination can only derogate from that rule under very strict conditions challenging the overriding requirements of general public importance, such as health care, consumer protection or the environment.’ With the most recent enlargement, this rule has become explosive: the more social disparities increase among Member States, the more they reveal the diabolical consequences of this rule. From now on, everything will depend on what the Court considers to come under the ‘overriding requirements of general public importance’. It is therefore not only a question of attacking Mr McCreevy’s zeal, but also of opposing the harmful provisions themselves of the
. From now on, let us consider this matter from the perspective of the forthcoming votes on the draft Bolkestein Directive, whatever Mr Poettering might have to say about it, and let us use this experience more generally to enhance our collective thoughts on the future of Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples