Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I can assure the House that Frits Bolkestein is alive and kicking, and that is why Martin Schulz is looking so bruised these days!
This Parliament must make a choice. Down the route of reform lies a dynamic, competitive Union which creates jobs, wealth and opportunity for its citizens. Down the path of protectionism lies short-term gain for some, and long-term loss for all, especially our 20 million unemployed.
70% of Europe’s economy and workforce relies on a healthy service sector, a sector being slowly strangled by a mindless mass of regulation.
Mrs Gebhardt says ‘think of small businesses’. It is because we think of them that we want the country of origin principle. 90% of service companies are SMEs. The country of origin principle allows them to assess, and then to test a foreign market. They send people over to do market research. Then they trade to test it before setting up an office or a subsidiary. Doing away with the country of origin principle reduces the growth effects of this measure by half.
Liberals and Democrats favour a search for compromise, but compromise between mutually exclusive policies is no compromise. We call it the ‘Berlin blockage’. This directive does not usher in social dumping. If they are in any doubt, Mr Schulz and Mr Rasmussen should read the 1996 directive on the posting of workers. It is still in force. Rather, the draft before us transforms principles like the free market of goods, services, capital and people into reality for 450 million people. These are founding principles of our Union which are simply not compatible with second-class citizenship for our new Member States.
Certainly there will be hard decisions to take, but our task is not to protect one sector over another. It is to legislate for the good of the European economy as a whole. If we can create a single market in services to rival our single market in goods, we can raise GDP by nearly 2% and create up to 2.5 million new jobs. That is what Frits Bolkestein wanted for Europe. To allow Member States to justify barriers to service provision on the basis of social policy and consumer protection would drive a lance through the heart of his proposal. However, we would not be contemplating such an emasculation of draft legislation if Mr Barroso and his Commissioners had defended their draft directive instead of tilting at windmills.
Does Commissioner McCreevy believe that his cabinet’s lobbying of Parliament last week advanced the case for Europe’s single market? Does he not know that paragraph 3 in compromise amendment 293 is contrary to ECJ jurisprudence and the Treaty’s provision on the free movement of services? I hope, Commissioner McCreevy, that you will answer that point in your reply. No, rather than showing the way, this Commission cowers in the shadows of public opinion and Member States’ hesitation.
Greater productivity, more jobs, higher wages, stronger companies: these are all within our grasp and that is why I urge the House to vote to make Europe a dynamic marketplace for jobs and services."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Loud applause from the centre and right)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples