Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090309.18.1-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the draft European Private Company statute is presented by the Commission as a component of the European Small Business Act.
In this framework, and taking the United States’ model, it was a question at the start of setting aside a defined share of public contracts for small companies. Such noble intentions are only to be applauded.
Unfortunately, it is totally different now that it has arrived, accompanied by the European private company. First, take the size of the target enterprises. In place of small enterprise, the already vaguer concept of small and medium-sized enterprises has slipped in. This has led finally, and I am reading from the explanatory statement of the draft regulation adopted by the Commission, to a ‘statute that can also benefit larger companies and groups’. This totally changes the philosophy of the policy, and now what will happen to these pseudo-SMEs? In truth, they will be subsidiaries of multinationals who, as we know, have long been demanding a single, less binding statute than what currently applies to the companies they control in the various European countries.
Let us look now at the nature of the benefits offered to companies by the EPC statute. It is no longer a question of giving easier access to public contracts. Rather, and again I am reading from the explanatory statement of the Commission’s text, its aim is now ‘to improve the framework conditions for businesses in the Single Market’. To this end, all European Private Companies could have their registered office in one country and their real activities in another. They could also transfer their registered office to any Member State they choose.
How can we not see in these provisions a way of allowing the companies in question to create constraint-free letter-box companies under the most indulgent conditions for the business world? Does not the Commission even specify that ‘the relevant applicable law is the law of the Member State where the EPC has its registered office, which applies to private limited-liability companies’?
As the European Trade Union Confederation accurately notes: ‘there is a great threat that companies will use the EPC statute to elude the most protective legislation’ for workers.
We now understand why the Commission did not consult the trade union organisations before adopting its proposal, contenting itself with the pure formality of an online consultation.
To sum up, when reading this draft regulation it appears that the emphasis placed on ‘small enterprises’ is above all political window-dressing aimed at making acceptable a rehash of the sadly famous ‘country of origin’ principle. It amounts to a revamped Bolkestein.
This is why my group proposes that Parliament send a clear signal to the Commission and the Council by rejecting this proposal for a European private company statute."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples