Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-181"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-181"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Bartenstein, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, today, we come to the final round of what is – next to the Constitution for Europe – the European Union’s most important legislative project, and we have made no haste about getting here. I could quite easily describe the efforts of the last few months, and the mountains of paper we have had to surmount, but the only thing is that it would take me hours to do so.
I have proposed a simple solution, according to which a business legally providing services in any one Member State would be allowed to offer those services in any other Member State as well, provided, that is, that the rules and laws of the country of destination would apply to the performance of the contract. The simplicity of this reflects our experience of real life; for example, a German driving licence entitles me to drive in England, but I am not allowed to drive on the right there.
It is thus that the free movement of services is provided for and fair competition ensured.
My second proposal was that this freedom of movement be accorded only to marketable commercial services, with all other excluded from the scope of the directive. In no way, for example, should Europe be obliged to accord freedom of movement to the modern version of slavery engaged in by temporary employment agencies.
We also have to ensure that services of general interest – in the broad sense of the term – are not affected, by protecting municipal self-government and the desire of citizens to manage their own affairs in everything from the water supply to nursery schools.
Parliament will be able to adopt the services directive subject to the necessary adjustments being made to the Commission’s original draft.
We have worked through the original draft in detail and turned it inside out; in so doing, we have frustrated the creation of a job-creation scheme for lawyers that would have been beyond the financial reach of small businesses.
As I see it, this complicated piece of legislation could still do with being made a bit clearer and simpler, but something else that is called for by such a complex enterprise is the strength to make compromises.
I have gained the impression that the Commission values this House’s constructive work and is not indissolubly attached to the old version that has caused such outrage in the Member States. The combined voices of trade unions, artisans’ associations, municipalities and all the other interested parties have had a powerful and visible effect.
We have now come to a tricky corner. We can enact the sort of law that is imposed on us neither by the Commission nor the Council. If we do, we will have given services in the European Union the freedom of movement that they need, and, at the same time, this would represent a major step towards a social Europe; the rights of workers would be secured, and quality and the environment protected. With such a result under our belt, this House could take pride in having served the interests of the 470 million people in our Community.
With that in mind, I would like, again, to thank all my fellow Members in every group for their very constructive cooperation. I do believe that we will, in the final discussions that still await us this afternoon, tonight and tomorrow, find the right solutions, which really will enable us to put together a large majority in this House, one that will force both the Commission and the Council to go down the road that we in Parliament have now mapped out.
I will therefore limit myself to a few basic observations, which will not be to everyone’s liking, but I have to say, Mr President, that they matter to me.
Services must be as freely mobile in Europa as goods and money, and so the Commission’s production – after a long wait – of the draft services directive is an event to be welcomed.
It is however, regrettable that the impression has been given that this draft is intended to set the interest of the 15 ‘old’ Member States against those of the ten ‘new’ ones that joined us in May 2004. The reason for my putting ‘old’ and ‘new’ in quotation marks is that all members of our community of states have the same rights and responsibilities irrespective of the length of time that they have belonged to it.
The European Union exists to promote the well-being of its 470 million citizens on a basis of equality; it does not exist to serve shareholder value or the interests of sabre-toothed liberalisers and their market mechanisms.
I see it as being of the utmost importance that what we do politically and in legislation should put people first and foremost. Our primary concern must be with workers and their families rather than with big business and its markets, and we must also spare a thought for small businesses and artisans, who must not be allowed to be trampled underfoot.
It was for these reasons that this House needed to give the Commission’s draft a thorough makeover, and we have made considerable progress despite the ideological dividing lines between us. I am confident that the plenary vote will see us being able to take the final, crucial steps.
The end product must be a directive unencumbered by massive bureaucracy, one that benefits the workers on whom Europe’s ability to compete depends. Such a directive must respect the idiosyncrasies of the Member States and obviate the danger of a downward spiral in working conditions and wages, in quality, and in the protection of consumers and the environment.
First of all, then, we must abandon the country-of-origin principle with all its devastating effects."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Vigorous applause"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples