Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.18.2-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In principle I am opposed to this type of report in which, on eminently routine matters within a particular policy area, Parliament repeats already known positions and reaffirms its overall good will. This does not contribute to greater confidence in Parliament, and it legitimises the position of those who want to see ever greater EU intervention even in such areas of policy, in this case employment policy, that should be the province of the individual Member States and be exposed to competition.
I have, however, chosen to vote in favour, and for an important reason: freedom of movement of the labour force. Those decisions that have permitted transitional rules that discriminate against workers in the new Member States are a flagrant departure from the principle of the freedom of movement of labour and an absolutely disgraceful way of acting towards the EU’s new Member States which have been very enthusiastic about joining the EU.
Experience from countries that have had limited transitional rules, or none at all, has emphatically shown that there is no need for such rules and that the ‘invasion’ that certain political leaders had threatened would happen has to no degree materialised. Rather, there is a need to attract more people who want to work instead of putting obstacles in the way of those who wish to do so.
The need clearly to point all this out and clearly to express Parliament’s rejection of any form of extension of such obstacles is, for me, a perfectly good reason for supporting the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples