Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.28.2-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Winkler, it is one thing to complete the internal market, which is an objective that we share. Yet, it is quite another thing to dismantle the European social model, which is a move that we strongly oppose. We strongly oppose it because it runs counter to the interests of the citizens and to the interests of workers and of European consumers, but also because it jeopardises citizens’ support for the European project.
The initial draft Bolkestein Directive was overwhelmingly rejected because it was seemingly designed to make the completion of the internal market dependent on the reduction of social rights and on the reduction of environmental standards and of the protection of those consumers who had attained a higher level of protection in some Member States than in others.
By seeking to base the internal market no longer on competition between businesses, but on competition between the social systems of the various Member States, the Bolkestein proposal has made it seem as though it is playing the Member States’ interests off against one other. It has created a suspicious atmosphere between old and new Member States, running counter to the European Commission’s task, which is to unite all Europeans around a common project. By including many social services and some services of general economic interest in the scope of the directive, the Commission has tried to subject activities that are crucial in terms of social cohesion to nothing other than the logic of competition and of the market.
With the country of origin principle, the Commission has turned its back on the Community method, which is aimed at sector-specific harmonisation. It is a method that has always consisted of bringing together the provisions in force in the Member States and is therefore strictly designed to promote mutual recognition and economic integration without jeopardising the European social model and – I repeat – the higher level of protection attained at times in certain countries. It was a question of upwards harmonisation.
With this draft, the European Commission has, for the first time ever, proposed a law that, unlike the Community method, encourages the disparity in national laws and rewards the least demanding Member States. Admittedly, the present Commission was not responsible for the initial proposal. Nevertheless, it does have a responsibility: once you recognised that this text was badly thought out and badly put together – as you pointed out, Mr McCreevy – it was your responsibility to withdraw it and to propose another text that was more in keeping with European social principles and liable to restore people’s confidence.
That is why the French members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will vote in favour of an amendment to reject the text. Mr Barroso, you stated that the Commission was willing to include the amendments that would help us make progress with the internal market in services, but you did not state what you would do with the amendments aimed at safeguarding social rights, environmental standards and consumer law. Nor did you state what you had in store for the amendments that would exclude social services and certain services of general economic interest from the scope of the directive. On the contrary, Mr McCreevy even stated this afternoon that he wanted to retain some services of general economic interest in the scope of the directive. You therefore give the impression of not listening to Parliament or of only listening to it when it comes out in favour of liberalisation.
Mr President, Mr Barroso, I will conclude by saying that this afternoon’s demonstration witnessed to the expectation of a Europe that is more protective of the social sphere than is the Commission. Our vote in favour of the compromise will be subject to the exclusion of all public services from the scope of the directive, to the removal of the country of origin principle and to the stipulation of clear legal rules with regard to the applicable law. The compromise currently proposed sadly does not include these changes, and we have therefore tabled amendments along these lines."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples