Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-02-Speech-2-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080902.4.2-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Europe is more than a common market. Besides being an economic entity, Europe is a community based on common values. I understand the European Union as a response to globalisation. In a globalised world, a certain social framework at European level provides essential protection. That is the idea behind the European social model, and it is an idea that I support.
On the other hand, however, we must also succeed in international competition. In the Lisbon Strategy we emphasise our goal of developing the Union into the world’s most competitive knowledge-based economic framework. To that end we must focus most of our attention on small and medium-sized businesses, for they are the pillar of economic development.
We must also accept that it is legitimate to ask how our rules affect these firms. The anti-discrimination policy is a good example. It goes without saying that I am opposed to discrimination, but in my view, and in the view of another 261 Members of the European Parliament, a comprehensive framework directive is not the right way forward; in particular, it is not the right way to protect the victims. We shall achieve the exact opposite and are more likely to marginalise these people. A great deal of legal uncertainty has been created for the Member States and for European citizens. At the present time, numerous Treaty infringement proceedings are pending against 14 Member States for failure to implement the four existing directives. The first thing we should be doing is to implement the existing legislation before creating any new rules. A new anti-discrimination directive will simply not give us the clarity that Commissioner Špidla promised.
The new rules raise many questions. Who, for example, can invoke the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of religious or ideological beliefs? Does that right extend to Scientologists or members of right-wing extremist groups? Is every restaurant, however small, now required to have a wheelchair ramp in order to guarantee unhindered access? The draft directive may provide for exemption from disproportionate measures, but how are such measures to be defined – by a national law or by a court ruling? Imprecise, amorphous instruments like the framework directive are impractical and, most importantly, do not help victims. That is not the idea behind the European social model. It will not work like that."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples