Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-02-Speech-2-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080902.4.2-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, an impassioned debate, but a debate on social Europe, and the fact that we are having this debate is proof of a meeting of minds. Our debate also shows how hard it is, nowadays, to separate the consideration of social issues at Community level from policy debates at national level. It proves too, in a way, that we are making progress on European integration.
Some people have levelled accusations at the Presidency. I shall not go into the detail of those accusations. I am not here to argue – like you, I am here to move social Europe forward.
Is social Europe a priority for the French Presidency? The question has been asked. The clear answer is yes, and, as you well know, on this we shall all be judged not by our aspirations at the outset, our initial ambitions, but purely by what we have achieved. We know now that there is a greater likelihood of achieving those results, results that are positive, and positive for social Europe. I am a firm believer in pragmatism.
On these various subjects, then, as President Nicolas Sarkozy said in his address to Parliament – works councils, temporary work – we are committed to getting the first one finalised, whilst the second is currently in Parliament's hands, as I said. And, I say again, we shall all shortly have to stand up and be counted. I will not dwell on questions such as whether a conservative government might be more 'social' than another. I would just say that I myself, in France, am Minister for Labour Relations and Solidarity. Because if you want to share wealth, you first have to create it. And how do you create it? Through labour. That is how you create wealth. Nor do I want to mention that back then, in 1993, when the famous working time directive was put forward, it was a French Socialist government and a Socialist minister – Mrs Aubry – who defended this directive and its opt-out. And what are we doing today about this famous directive? Let us look at it realistically: does it or does it not represent an improvement on the current situation, where we are in a veritable no man's land after 48 hours? Everyone knows it in all honesty. Only it is important to say that whilst this directive may not necessarily embody the initial 1993 idea, which was to get rid of the opt-out, it now provides a framework and additional guarantees for today's, not yesterday's situation. Can we say that? Certainly we can, because I believe that public debate and political debate should be instructive. Either opt-outs continue, and are properly regulated, because we now know from the case-law to date that on-call time is a major issue. Or we can be pragmatic, take the view that it represents progress and accept a revision which will resolve some issues and improve the position, even though obviously today's outcome will not necessarily please everyone and I am well placed to appreciate that.
Then there is the matter of the Court rulings. This is not about judging a judgment, far from it. But we need to look at today's situation in the light of the Court judgments. What is the new legal position? And we need to hear the views of the states primarily affected. I have discussed this with my opposite numbers. The social partners must also give their views on the subject, and not necessarily separately. Together would be far better, so that we can draw our conclusions accordingly. As far as this is concerned the Presidency will bring no preconceived ideas to the debate. Should the directive be revised? I have heard the question repeatedly and not only in this House. The answer to it should, I believe, come after the debate and not necessarily at the start of it. Otherwise that means one has preconceived ideas, and I do not.
On the matter of social services of general interest, it seems to me that all Member States are keen to preserve the organisation of the general service remit that is specific to each individual country. But let's face it, there is disagreement as to what should be done at Community level. Some take the view that subsidiarity is the only answer, whilst others think there should be a Community legal framework. This, clearly, is not going to be decided in a hurry. Our proposal for a roadmap with the Commission is an attempt to ensure that these issues are addressed properly in line with the Union's timetable.
Many other exciting topics have been raised. On action against discrimination, the Presidency has promised to move the new directive forward. Finalising this, as you know, requires unanimity of the Member States.
On a number of occasions I have heard the word availability mentioned. That is most fitting, because efficacy requires availability. We have to be clear about this now. Is social Europe able to progress or not? For me the answer is a resounding yes, and we
move social Europe forward. Are we not well into 2008? We are, I agree. Is it too late? Certainly not! It is never too late. Have we the desire to move forward? Obviously we do. But the question is this: are we going to move social Europe forward together? Here, ladies and gentlemen, is where we must all stand up and be counted!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples