Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-355"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.28.2-355"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, at the stage we are at with this matter this evening, I am aware that it is politically improper to oppose a compromise painstakingly drafted by leaders of two political groups. Each architect of this compromise is claiming victory, which makes me uneasy because I do not like being taken for a fool.
My colleagues swear to me that the country of origin principle is implicit in the compromise text. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament boast that they have nipped it in the bud.
I, like others, regard the country of origin principle and the history of European integration as being intimately connected. Dogmatically rejecting this connection means going against what we are patiently building and means introducing the principle of widespread suspicion.
Of course, this principle would be unable to prevail over all the others because we have controlled and managed it.
We made it clear that the legislation of the country of destination applies to all aspects related to the social sphere. Continuing to talk about an attack on social standards is therefore exceptionally misleading.
We are told not to mix up commercial and non-commercial services. Yet, on this point too, we did mix things up and we ended up toning down the directive, which now includes so many derogations that it would be better to define what it does actually apply to, and not the other way round.
The bottom line is that the rules of the country of destination relating to the posting of workers have never been the subject of dispute. So, what more do people want? To go back on the
of the Treaty of Rome?
The compromise on Article 16 hardly confirms these
. This is by no means progress! I believe that, in these conditions, rather than picking apart a directive until there is nothing left of it, it would be much better to stick to the version of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
Mr President, I am not willing to swallow just anything in order to reach a solution that, on the pretext of defending social standards, actually defends protectionist standards, and I will vote accordingly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples