Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-319"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060214.28.2-319"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, my predecessor, Mr Philip Whitehead MEP, would have been proud to have spoken on behalf of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. He would have been proud of the work done by our rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, and all the Members who have worked so hard to improve and amend the Commission proposal. He would have wanted to have been here to witness the mature and responsible way in which this Parliament is building a consensus on behalf of our citizens for the opening of the market on services. If we get it right, we can open up the market, boost jobs and growth across the EU and help Europe compete globally with the booming services market in India and China. The Bolkestein proposal was flawed because it failed to recognise that if you want the public to support the opening-up of the market you have to convince them of the benefits and reassure them that it will not undermine working or consumer rights. If you want to encourage citizens to support change and reform, you have to explain to them what is in it for them, for their own life prospects. It is Parliament which is speaking for the citizen and taking up the issues of all our citizens, businesses, consumers, workers and the unemployed. So let us make it simple. We need to end the ludicrous discriminatory practices that are stopping our businesses from getting a foothold in the European market. Why should a business have to apply to join a local chamber of commerce, only to be told there is a five-year waiting list? Why should a business have to set up four offices and pay a EUR 500 000 deposit? The black economy is thriving in Europe in the services sector because these complex and costly barriers are encouraging businesses to engage in undeclared and illegal work. Let us make them legal with these rules. Let us get rid of protectionism, but protect consumers and working rights. I believe consumers can see the benefit of choice and competition if they can be sure that if something goes wrong they can have a speedy remedy in a local court and they do not have to chase down a bad provider to Lisbon, Paris, Warsaw or London to have their rights recognised. This is what we are trying to achieve in these compromises. Those working in the service sector need the guarantee that their employment rights are protected. This is not about old or new Europe. This is not about left or right. Citizens are looking to us to make the right choice: to get rid of crippling protectionism in the single market in services and protect working and consumer rights. I believe that if we get it right it will be a victory for parliamentary democracy and a boost to jobs and growth for future generations of Europeans. Finally, I would like to ask the Commission to look at ensuring that these single points of delivery, these one-stop-shops that are so vital to delivering, monitoring and supervising the kind of services we want. It should look at setting up an EU trust mark or an EU quality assurance scheme to give the consumer the trust and the confidence to use these services which respect consumers’ rights and working rights."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph