Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-334"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.28.2-334"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are today debating one of the most significant legislative acts for the future of Europe. It may well lead to a new dimension for the Union, but it will be one in line with the founding fathers’ original vision. The criticisms voiced by certain opponents of this directive are only loosely related to its draft. In fact, they are an effort to call a halt to the economic integration of Europe on the basis of four fundamental freedoms.
We cannot go along with hypocrisy and calls for the restrictions on enterprises’ freedom to provide services and for restrictions on consumers’ freedom to access these services, all under the pretext of protecting national sovereignty. Neither can we go along with the proposal to take yet another step backwards from the current legal situation, and the jurisprudence of the Court this year, by limiting the scope of application of the directive and continuing to allow national administrations complete freedom to impose new barriers and retain existing ones.
We are also concerned that, in certain Member States, the debate has centred on the Polish plumber and on the Latvian or Portuguese construction worker, whilst genuinely discriminatory administrative barriers are actually the most serious problem. The single internal market is still plagued by divisions between the old Europe and the new Europe. Many Member States implement discriminatory practices with regard to service providers from other Member States. This tendency has become even more marked since the enlargement of the Union. The result of the discriminatory restrictions affecting the cross-border flow of services is that small and medium-sized enterprises are missing opportunities to develop and create jobs.
Europe needs a sound Services Directive with a wide scope of application, a strong Article 16 and indeed Articles 24 and 25. Such a directive would only remove administrative barriers and would not impact on the Directive concerning the posting of workers, contrary to what everyone is being led to believe. Europe needs a Services Directive that will ensure the provisions of the Lisbon Strategy do not simply remain on paper. A clear and unambiguous text is required if we are to achieve this aim.
Thanks to Parliament’s work, parts of the text that were unclear have been improved, but we must not create new difficulties as we vote on the draft. The original sense and purpose of the directive must not be sacrificed in the interests of what are often far-reaching compromises. Protectionism does not create jobs. Protectionism is an evil short-sighted instrument with which to defend workers’ rights. It is a manifestation of the national bureaucracies’ lack of political ability to face up to the challenges of the real economic and political world."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples