Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.21.2-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioners, in any battle, it is advisable to assess each stage correctly. One must neither underestimate the points scored, otherwise one encourages defeatism, nor overestimate what seems to have been won, for fear of setting oneself up for disillusionment.
In the case of the so-called ‘Bolkestein’ draft directive, where are we in this respect? The points scored at first reading in Parliament by the opponents of the original text are undeniable. The removal of the reference to the country of origin principle and the adjustment to the actual application of the Directive are the most symbolic setbacks imposed on the hard-liners of liberal Europe. The exclusion of a number of sectors from the scope of the Directive and the granting to the host country of supervisory powers, which are, nonetheless, limited, conditional and difficult to implement, are also significant factors. Finally, the exclusion of labour law takes us back to the law currently in force.
We shall examine the Commission’s new text under a microscope. If it appeared that the Commission was trying to reclaim part of the ground that it had had to concede, particularly by granting itself any automatic right of supervision, that would, in our opinion, constitute an unacceptable claim. If, on the other hand, it turned out that the Commission has included Parliament’s demands in its new revised draft directive, that would be both a fresh sign of the growing importance of our Assembly within the European institutional triangle and also, and perhaps most importantly, this would be the confirmation of the formative influence of the citizens’ sudden emergence in the European debate, especially since a certain 29 May 2005. That just shows you that our group has no intention of denying these developments.
Having said that, however, does the result achieved to date manage to curb this craze for competition between workers, against which our fellow citizens are rising in ever-greater numbers? That is the real question, and our answer is ‘no’.
Apart from the exceptions stated, the Directive in its amended form in fact reinforces rules establishing a form of integration that is no longer based on harmonisation of legislation, but on freedom of the market. The present circumstances and the weight of the
in this respect merit our renewed attention, especially at a time of the enlargement of the European Union to include countries whose social standards are attractive to economic and political leaders obsessed with lowering costs and lifting ‘barriers to competition’ in the notorious free market economy in which competition is open and undistorted.
How are we prepared to depart from this repressive logic? When the time comes for the great open debate on the future of the European Union, that is the central issue on which I propose opening up the discussion, particularly on the left."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples