Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-327"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060214.28.2-327"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"( ) We are on the point of taking a far-reaching decision affecting the fate of one of the basic freedoms of the Union, which has formed part of European law for more than fifty years. At the same time as Europe is opening up to the economies of third countries, the countries of the Union are erecting internal barriers to the mutual provision of services. The moment has come to either knock down these artificial walls or give them our seal of approval, which would be greeted by applause by the trade unionists. The outcome will show how well the Union has coped with enlargement. The Berlin Wall has fallen, the new Member States have opened their markets to goods and services from all over Europe, and yet there are still EU Member States that have not duly implemented European legislation on the free movement of services. These states are hypocritically protecting their markets against mutual competition, in contravention of the law of the Union and the rulings of the courts. We are confronted with Chirac’s idiotic phantom in the form of a Polish plumber, hovering over France and other countries. Now is the time to find out who takes the ideas of the Lisbon Strategy and the flexible market seriously, and who does not. On what will the opposition be basing their arguments, I wonder. They have not presented us with any studies, but have rather used the rapporteur to foist false impressions on trade unionists. It is simply not true that the Directive will transform labour laws, nor will it amend laws on workers’ programmes or undermine their protection. On the contrary, all of the studies show that it will bring 600 000 new jobs, EUR 37 billion for the economy and an end to discrimination. The proposed watering down of the Directive and surrender of country of origin principle goes against the interests of everyone, including consumers, and it would also represent an ideological blow to the concept of deregulation and continuing harmonisation. Our experience with the movement of goods has shown that such an option is unworkable. The Member States would never agree on it, and more importantly, through bringing further regulation rather than simplification and flexibility, it would only delay the goal of a successful Europe operating within the framework of a global economy. The Directive thus provides a test of whether we favour short-term national protectionism or a common European prosperity."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE ). –"1

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