Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090309.18.1-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to make four comments. Firstly, with regard to the directive on the transfer of registered offices, I think that the Commission should abandon its argument, as it runs the risk of making itself a laughing stock among experts. The theory that transfers of company seats can be arranged such that a company is started up in a neighbouring country and then one’s own company merged with it under the Directive on mergers could scarcely be more bureaucratic. We are talking here about reducing bureaucracy and trying to make things easier for SMEs. This proposal just goes to prove how little sense it makes for the Commission to persist in refusing to present a proposal on the 14th Directive. This benefits no one but lawyers.
My second point concerns participation. Mrs van den Burg is right: real SMEs are not affected in the slightest by the compromise we have presented. We are aiming only to avoid abuses and to record companies that are actually large companies and are more suited to the European company than to the European private company in terms of the number of employees. It is practically only abuses that are being recorded.
My third point concerns the real-seat theory, to which only seven Member States remain committed – only seven! Last year, the largest Member State, Germany, abandoned this theory. The European Court of Justice does not advocate it, but allows it in exceptional cases, as proved by the
ruling. That ship has sailed; there is no point in continuing to argue about it.
The fourth thing I want to say is that the argument on the part of left-wing Members – none of whom stayed for the debate earlier on – that the proposal should be rejected does not take account of the substance of the report – Mr Medina Ortega is absolutely right about this. The substance of the report actually takes care of all the criticism that has been presented. Therefore, I would suggest that the left-wing Members, too, consider rereading the report and the amendments and then discussing them once again with their group."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Cartesio"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples