Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-253"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-14"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Komisjoni õigusloome- ja tööprogramm 2007 (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061114.36.2-253"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-14-Speech-2-254⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Malcolm Harbour⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mr Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)²² member; IMCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; JURI (2004-10-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; ITRE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@cs¹ "Fru formand! Jeg vil starte med at rejse spørgsmålet om det indre marked. Jeg er muligvis lidt sent ude, for spørgsmålet om det indre marked blev drøftet tidligere af mine kolleger. Jeg ønsker imidlertid at hilse gennemgangen af strategien for det indre marked velkommen på vegne af PPE-DE-Gruppen. Det glæder mig, at vi nu fokuserer på begrebet "det indre marked", da det er en langt bedre beskrivelse af det, vi arbejder for. Vi ønsker derfor at give Kommissionen vores støtte i denne sammenhæng samt i forbindelse med andre initiativer til fremme af det indre marked. Det leder mig hen på de betænkeligheder, som jeg nærer i forhold til arbejdsprogrammet og de prioriteter, der er fremlagt. Arbejdsprogrammet er langt bedre end arbejdsprogrammet for sidste år, som efter min opfattelse var meget problematisk, og hvori der var en lang liste over uprioriterede forslag. Der er stadig en lang liste over forslag. Jeg mener, at der er 21 initiativer, og som min kollega, hr. Grosch, nævnte, fremgår forskellen mellem strategiske initiativer og prioriteter ikke tydeligt. Jeg ønsker endnu en gang at fremhæve, at en liste over prioriteter, der indeholder over fem prioriteter, overhovedet ikke er en prioriteringsliste. Jeg ønsker dog helt grundlæggende at understrege, at spørgsmålet om praktisk gennemførelse, som det glæder mig at kunne sige er inkluderet i programmet, malerisk beskrives som "en daglig opgave", som om det er et rutinespørgsmål. I England leveres der f.eks. stadig mælk dagligt, og det glæder mig at kunne sige, at det er i halvliters flasker. Men det er ikke et rutinespørgsmål, men et grundlæggende spørgsmål om praktisk gennemførelse! Jeg vil meget gerne vide, hvor mange midler Kommissionen vil afsætte til gennemførelsen af sine politikker. Hvad angår det indre marked ved vi, at hr. McCreevy har beregnet, at 90 % af lovgivningen allerede er på plads. Praktisk gennemførelse er af afgørende betydning. Hvor er det anført, hvilke ressourcer og midler Kommissionen vil anvende til disse initiativer? Hvor står der, hvilke ressourcer og midler Kommissionen vil anvende til gennemførelsesplanen for direktivet om tjenesteydelser, som vi vil godkende i morgen, og som er et grundlæggende stykke lovgivning? Hvis Kommissionen ikke har afsat tilstrækkelige midler, kan lovgivningen ikke gennemføres i praksis. Jeg ønsker at anmode kommissær Wallström, som jeg forstår er ansvarlig for formidling, om at samle den næste lovgivningspakke. Det er uhensigtsmæssigt, at politikken om det indre marked er spredt rundt i dokumentet. Jeg ønsker en understregning af, at det indre marked er en prioritet med en beskrivelse af tiltag, ressourcer for praktisk gennemførelse samt Kommissionens forenklingsplan, og jeg ønsker, at alt disse oplysninger samles med en angivelse af de midler, som Kommissionen har afsat til gennemførelsen. Det vil være et logisk og sammenhængende dokument og klar og tydelig formidling. I relation til direktivet om tjenesteydelser glæder det mig meget, at hr. Schulz er til stede, for jeg har noteret mig i en pressemeddelelse, som han har udsendt i dag, at direktivet om tjenesteydelser er en stor succes for Socialdemokraterne. Jeg vil henvende mig til mine kolleger på denne side af salen og understrege, at det er en meget stor succes for hele Parlamentet og alle os, der samarbejder. Jeg håber, at man vil acceptere dette. Jeg har dog bemærket, at hr. Schulz endelig er begyndt at gå ind for liberalisering, for i pressemeddelelsen er det anført, at han støtter den der er nødvendig for erhvervslivet og løftet om jobskabelse. Velkommen til klubben for liberalisering af markedet, hr. Schulz!"@da² "Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte zunächst auf die Frage des Binnenmarktes eingehen. Das ist wohl außerhalb der Reihe, denn mit dem Binnenmarkt haben sich bereits zuvor einige meiner Kollegen befasst. Ich wollte aber im Namen der Mitglieder unserer Fraktion die Überprüfung der Binnenmarktstrategie begrüßen. Ich freue mich, dass wir uns jetzt auf die Bezeichnung „Binnenmarkt“ konzentrieren, denn sie beschreibt wesentlich genauer, wofür wir arbeiten. Darum werden wir die Kommission umfassend dabei und natürlich auch bei anderen Initiativen unterstützen, den Binnenmarkt funktionsfähiger zu gestalten. Das bringt mich zu einem allgemeineren Anliegen, das ich in Bezug auf das Arbeitsprogramm und die dargelegten Prioritäten habe. Es stellt eine erhebliche Verbesserung gegenüber dem Vorjahresprogramm dar, an dem ich viel zu bemängeln hatte und das eine sehr lange Auflistung von Vorschlägen enthielt, ohne Prioritäten zu setzen. Die Liste der Vorschläge ist auch dieses Mal wieder lang. Ich glaube, es sind 21 Initiativen, und – wie mein Kollege Herr Grosch festgestellt hat – der Unterschied zwischen strategischen Initiativen und Prioritäten ist nicht vollkommen klar. Ich möchte noch einmal anmerken, dass eine Liste mit mehr als fünf Prioritäten überhaupt keine Prioritätenliste ist. Allerdings muss ich grundsätzlich feststellen, dass der Punkt der Umsetzung, der zu meiner Freude enthalten ist, malerisch als „Politisches Handeln: Ein tägliches Bemühen“ beschrieben wird, als ob es eine Routineangelegenheit wäre – in England haben wir immer noch die tägliche Milchlieferung, übrigens in Pint-Flaschen, wie ich mich freue sagen zu können. Es ist doch aber keine Routine, sondern eine grundlegende Angelegenheit! Ich möchte wirklich wissen, mit welchen Ressourcen die Kommission die Umsetzung ihrer Politikmaßnahmen gewährleisten will. Beim Binnenmarkt wissen wir, dass nach Einschätzung von Herr McCreevy 90 % der Rechtsvorschriften bereits eingeführt sind. Auf die Umsetzung kommt es an. Wo steht denn, mit welchen Ressourcen die Kommission ihre Initiativen durchführen will? Wo steht, mit welchen Ressourcen die Kommission einen Umsetzungsplan für die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie durchführen will, die wir morgen verabschieden werden, was ein wichtiges Stück Arbeit ist? Wenn die Kommission die Ressourcen nicht bereitstellt, dann gibt es keine Umsetzung. Ich würde Kommissarin Wallström, die meines Wissens für Kommunikation zuständig ist, gern fragen, welches Paket als nächstes geschnürt werden soll. Ich will nicht, dass die Binnenmarktpolitik über dieses ganze Dokument verteilt ist: Ich will, dass die Priorität für den Binnenmarkt zusammen mit den dazugehörigen Aktionen, den Ressourcen für die Umsetzung und dem Vereinfachungsplan der Kommission aufgeführt wird, und ich will das alles gebündelt mit dem prozentualen Anteil der Ressourcen, die die Kommission dafür bereitstellt. Das wäre ein logisches und klares Dokument und eine eindeutige Mitteilung. Was schließlich die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie betrifft, so bin ich hoch erfreut, dass Herr Schulz anwesend ist, weil ich der Pressemitteilung, die er heute herausgegeben hat, entnehme, dass die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie ein gewaltiger Erfolg für die Sozialdemokratische Fraktion ist. Nun, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen auf dieser Seite des Hohen Hauses, sie ist ein gewaltiger Erfolg für dieses Parlament und für die Zusammenarbeit von uns allen. Ich hoffe, man wird die Bescheidenheit aufbringen, das zu akzeptieren. Allerdings stelle ich fest, dass er sich endlich unserem liberalen Klub angeschlossen hat, denn in der Pressemitteilung steht, dass er die notwendige Flexibilität für Unternehmen und die zugesagte Schaffung neuer Arbeitsplätze unterstützt. Willkommen im Klub der Marktliberalisierer, Herr Schulz!"@de⁹ "Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θέλω καταρχάς να αναφερθώ στο ζήτημα της εσωτερικής αγοράς. Νομίζω ότι είμαι εκτός σειράς, διότι η εσωτερική αγορά συζητήθηκε προηγουμένως από ορισμένους συναδέλφους μου. Ωστόσο, θέλω να χαιρετίσω την αναθεώρηση της στρατηγικής για την κοινή αγορά εξ ονόματος των μελών της Ομάδας μας. Χαίρομαι διότι επικεντρωνόμαστε τώρα στον όρο «κοινή αγορά», καθόσον περιγράφει πολύ ακριβέστερα τον στόχο για την επίτευξη του οποίου εργαζόμαστε. Θα στηρίξουμε, συνεπώς, την Επιτροπή προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, καθώς και σε άλλες πρωτοβουλίες οι οποίες συμβάλλουν στη βελτίωση της λειτουργίας της κοινής αγοράς. Αυτό μας οδηγεί σε ένα ευρύτερο θέμα που με απασχολεί σχετικά με το πρόγραμμα εργασίας και τις προτεραιότητες που μας παρουσιάστηκαν. Είναι σημαντικά βελτιωμένο σε σύγκριση με το πρόγραμμα του προηγούμενου έτους, στο οποίο άσκησα έντονη κριτική και το οποίο περιελάμβανε εκτενή κατάλογο προτάσεων χωρίς σειρά προτεραιότητας. Ο κατάλογος των προτάσεων είναι και αυτή τη φορά εκτενής. Νομίζω ότι υπάρχουν 21 πρωτοβουλίες και, όπως επεσήμανε ο συνάδελφός μου κ. Grosch, η διαφορά μεταξύ στρατηγικών πρωτοβουλιών και προτεραιοτήτων δεν είναι απολύτως σαφής. Θα επαναλάβω την άποψη ότι ένας κατάλογος προτεραιοτήτων με περισσότερα από πέντε στοιχεία δεν αποτελεί κατάλογο προτεραιοτήτων. Εν πάση περιπτώσει, η βασική μου επισήμανση είναι ότι το θέμα της υλοποίησης, το οποίο διαπιστώνω με ικανοποίηση ότι περιλαμβάνεται, περιγράφεται με τη γραφική έκφραση «υλοποίηση: μια καθημερινή εργασία», σαν να επρόκειτο για θέμα ρουτίνας – στην Αγγλία γίνονται ακόμα καθημερινές παραδόσεις γάλακτος, και με ευχαρίστηση μάλιστα μπορώ να πω ότι η χωρητικότητα των φιαλών μετριέται ακόμη σε πίντες. Εν προκειμένω, όμως, δεν έχουμε να κάνουμε με θέμα ρουτίνας, αλλά με θέμα το οποίο έχει θεμελιώδη σημασία! Θέλω πραγματικά να μας ενημερώσετε σχετικά με τους πόρους που διαθέτει η Επιτροπή για την υλοποίηση των πολιτικών της. Ως προς την κοινή αγορά, γνωρίζουμε ότι ο κ. McCreevy εκτιμά ότι το 90% της νομοθεσίας έχει ήδη τεθεί σε ισχύ. Η υλοποίηση είναι θεμελιώδους σημασίας. Πού αναφέρεται το είδος των πόρων που διαθέτει η Επιτροπή για την υλοποίηση των πρωτοβουλιών της; Πού αναφέρονται οι πόροι που θα διαθέσει η Επιτροπή για το σχέδιο μεταφοράς της οδηγίας για τις υπηρεσίες την οποία θα εγκρίνουμε αύριο και η οποία είναι απολύτως αναγκαία; Αν η Επιτροπή δεν διαθέσει τους αναγκαίους πόρους, δεν πρόκειται να υλοποιηθεί. Καλώ την Επίτροπο Wallström, η οποία εξ όσων γνωρίζω είναι αρμόδια για τις επικοινωνίες, να φροντίσει ώστε η επόμενη δέσμη να είναι συγκεντρωμένη. Δεν επιθυμώ η πολιτική για την κοινή αγορά να είναι διάσπαρτη σε αυτό το έγγραφο: επιθυμώ η προτεραιότητα της κοινής αγοράς να συνοδεύεται από τις συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες που πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθούν, από τους πόρους που θα διατεθούν και από το σχέδιο απλούστευσης της Επιτροπής, και όλα αυτά να συνδυάζονται με το ποσοστό των πόρων που πρόκειται να διαθέσει η Επιτροπή. Μια τέτοια ανακοίνωση και ένα τέτοιο έγγραφο θα ήταν λογικά και σαφή. Τέλος, όσον αφορά την οδηγία για τις υπηρεσίες, χαίρομαι που είναι παρών ο κ. Schulz, καθόσον διαβάζω σε δήλωση Τύπου την οποία εξέδωσε σήμερα ότι η οδηγία για τις υπηρεσίες αποτελεί τεράστια επιτυχία της Ομάδας των Σοσιαλιστών. Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι της αριστερής πτέρυγας, πρόκειται για τεράστια επιτυχία του Σώματος και είναι αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας όλων μας. Μακάρι να έχουν ορισμένοι την ταπεινοφροσύνη ώστε να το αναγνωρίσουν. Διαπιστώνω, πάντως, ότι επιτέλους εντάσσεται στη φιλελεύθερη λέσχη μας, καθόσον στην εν λόγω δήλωση αναφέρει ότι υποστηρίζει την αναγκαία στον τομέα της επιχειρηματικότητας και την υπόσχεση της δημιουργίας νέων θέσεων εργασίας. Καλώς ήλθατε στη λέσχη του φιλελευθερισμού της αγοράς, κύριε Schulz!"@el¹⁰ "Señora Presidenta, quiero comenzar con la cuestión del mercado interior. Creo que he perdido el hilo, porque varios colegas ya han hablado antes del mercado interior. No obstante, quiero acoger con satisfacción la revisión de la estrategia de mercado único en nombre de los diputados de nuestro Grupo. Me complace que ahora nos centremos en el nombre «mercado único», porque describe con mucha más precisión aquello por lo que trabajamos. Por lo tanto, apoyaremos en gran medida a la Comisión a este respecto, al igual que con respecto a otras iniciativas encaminadas a hacer que el mercado único funcione mejor. Eso me lleva a una preocupación mayor que tengo con respecto al programa de trabajo y a las prioridades tal y como se nos presentan. Es una mejora considerable con respecto al programa del año pasado, con el que fui muy crítico y que contenía una lista larguísima de propuestas sin priorizar. Seguimos teniendo una lista larguísima de propuestas. Creo que hay 21 iniciativas, y como ha afirmado mi colega, el señor Grosch, la diferencia entre iniciativas estratégicas y prioridades no está del todo clara. Vuelvo a decir que una lista con más de cinco prioridades no es una lista de prioridades en absoluto. Sin embargo, quiero dejar muy claro que la cuestión del cumplimiento, que me complace decir que está incluida, se califica pintorescamente de «cumplimiento de una tarea diaria», como si fuera una cuestión rutinaria; en Inglaterra los lecheros siguen cumpliendo su tarea diaria de traernos la leche a casa, y me complace decir que lo hacen en botellas de medio litro. No obstante, no es una cuestión rutinaria, sino fundamental. Quiero conocer realmente los recursos que dedica la Comisión a la aplicación de sus políticas. Con respecto al mercado único, sabemos que el señor McCreevy estima que el 90 % de la legislación ya está en pie. El cumplimiento es fundamental. ¿Dónde constan los recursos que dedica la Comisión a sus iniciativas? ¿Dónde constan los recursos que dedica la Comisión a un plan de transposición de la Directiva de servicios que aprobaremos mañana, que es un texto fundamental? Si la Comisión no la respalda con los recursos necesarios, no habrá cumplimiento. Quisiera preguntar a la Comisaria Wallström, quien a mi entender es responsable de comunicación, por el próximo paquete que se va a confeccionar. No quiero que la política del mercado único se disperse por todo este documento: quiero que conste la prioridad del mercado único junto a las medidas correspondientes, a los recursos dedicados al cumplimiento y al plan de simplificación de la Comisión, y quiero que todo esto se agrupe indicando el porcentaje de recursos que la Comisión va a dedicar a todo esto. Eso sería un documento lógico y claro y una comunicación clara. Por último, con respecto a la Directiva de servicios, me complace que el señor Schulz esté presente, porque veo en una nota de prensa que ha emitido hoy que la Directiva de servicios es un éxito enorme para el Grupo Socialista. Muy bien, Señorías de esta parte de la Cámara, se trata de un éxito enorme para este Parlamento y para todos nosotros que trabajamos juntos. Espero que la gente tenga la humildad de aceptarlo. No obstante, observo que finalmente se ha unido a nuestro club liberal, porque la nota afirma que apoya la necesaria para las empresas y la promesa de la nueva creación de empleo. Bienvenido al club de la liberalización del mercado, señor Schulz."@es²⁰ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, aluksi haluan tarkastella sisämarkkinoita. Olen kenties myöhässä, sillä eräät kollegat käsittelivät sisämarkkinoita aikaisemmin. Haluan kuitenkin ryhmäni puolesta ilmaista tyytyväisyytemme siihen, että yhtenäismarkkinastrategiaa tarkistetaan. Olen tyytyväinen siihen, että keskitymme nyt "yhtenäismarkkinoihin", sillä nimi kuvaa paljon paremmin sitä, minkä eteen teemme työtä. Tuemme siis komissiota tässä suuresti, kuten muissakin aloitteissa, joilla pyritään parantamaan yhtenäismarkkinoiden toimintaa. Tästä pääsen suurempaan huoleeni, joka koskee työohjelmaa ja meille esitettyjä ensisijaisia tavoitteita. Työohjelma on paljon parempi kuin viimevuotinen, johon suhtauduin hyvin kriittisesti ja johon sisältyi pitkä luettelo priorisoimattomia ehdotuksia. Nytkin meillä on pitkä luettelo ehdotuksia. Nähdäkseni aloitteita on 21, ja kuten kollegani Grosch totesi, strategisten aloitteiden ja ensisijaisten tavoitteiden välinen ero ei ole selkeä. Muistutan jälleen, ettei ensisijaisten tavoitteiden luettelo, jossa on enemmän kuin viisi ensisijaista tavoitetta, ole ensisijaisten tavoitteiden luettelo. Haluan kuitenkin korostaa, että tulosten tuottaminen, joka ilokseni sisältyy ohjelmaan, on värikkäästi kuvattu "päivittäisten tulosten tuottamiseksi", ikään kuin kyse olisi rutiiniasiasta. Meillä on englannissa vieläkin päivittäisiä maitotoimituksia, ja ilokseni voin kertoa, että ne tulevat pintin pulloissa. Kyse ei kuitenkaan ole rutiiniasiasta vaan perustavaa laatua olevasta asiasta! Haluan todellakin tietää, mitä varoja komissio ohjaa politiikkansa täytäntöönpanoon. Tiedämme, että jäsen McCreevyn mukaan yhtenäismarkkinoita koskeva lainsäädäntö on 90-prosenttisesti valmis. Tulosten tuottaminen on ratkaisevaa. Missä esitetään, mitä varoja komissio ohjaa aloitteisiinsa? Missä esitetään, mitä varoja komissio ohjaa suunnitelmaan huomenna hyväksyttävän palveludirektiivin saattamiseksi osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöä? On kyse perustavaa laatua olevasta työstä. Jos komissio ei ohjaa siihen varoja, tuloksia ei tuoteta. Haluan kysyä komission jäsen Wallströmiltä, joka käsittääkseni vastaa viestinnästä, seuraavaksi koottavasta paketista. En halua, että yhtenäismarkkinoita koskevaa politiikkaa sirotellaan sinne tänne asiakirjassa: haluan, että siinä todetaan yhtenäismarkkinoiden olevan ensisijainen tavoite sekä esitetään peräkkäin niihin liittyvät toimet, tulosten tuottamisen edellyttämät varat sekä komission yksinkertaistamissuunnitelma, ja haluan että kaikki tämä niputetaan yhteen komission osoittamien varojen prosenttiosuuksien kanssa. Näin asiakirja olisi looginen ja selkeä ja edustaisi selkeää viestintää. Lopuksi, mitä tulee palveludirektiiviin, olen iloinen siitä, että jäsen Schulz on täällä, sillä havaitsin hänen tänään antamastaan lehdistötiedotteesta, että palveludirektiivi on sosialidemokraattien ryhmän valtaisa saavutus. Arvoisat kollegat tällä puolen salia, se on valtaisa saavutus parlamentille ja meidän kaikkien yhteistyön ansiota. Toivon, että ihmisillä on nöyryyttä myöntää tämä. Huomasin kuitenkin jäsen Schulzin lopultakin liittyneen liberaalikerhoomme, sillä lehdistötiedotteessa todetaan, että hän kannattaa yritystoiminnan ja uusia työpaikkoja koskevien lupausten edellyttämää joustavuutta. Tervetuloa markkinoiden vapauttamisen kerhoon, hyvä jäsen Schulz!"@fi⁷ "Madame la Présidente, je commencerais par soulever la question du marché intérieur. Je pense être hors sujet, parce que cette question a déjà été évoquée par certains de mes collègues. Néanmoins, je souhaite saluer la révision de la stratégie du marché unique de la part des membres de notre groupe. Je suis heureux que nous nous concentrions à présent sur l’expression de «marché unique», car elle décrit bien plus précisément ce que nous recherchons. Nous soutiendrons donc grandement la Commission à cet égard et dans d’autres initiatives visant à mieux faire fonctionner le marché unique. Ce point me conduit à une question qui me préoccupe davantage au sujet du programme de travail et des priorités qui nous sont présentés. Il est nettement meilleur que celui de l’année dernière, sur lequel je me suis montré très critique et qui comportait une très longue liste de propositions sans priorité. Ce programme comporte encore de nombreuses propositions. Il y a 21 initiatives, je pense, et comme ma collègue M. Grosch l’a dit, la différence entre les initiatives stratégiques et les priorités n’est pas tout à fait claire. Je voudrais dire encore une fois qu’une liste qui contient plus de cinq priorités n’a rien d’une liste de priorités. Quoi qu’il en soit, je voudrais soulever un point fondamental: la question des tâches à accomplir, que je me réjouis de voir figurer ici, est décrite de manière pittoresque. On parle de «mise en œuvre: une tâche de tous les instants», comme si c’était une tâche quotidienne - il existe encore des tâches de tous les instants en Angleterre, les livraisons quotidiennes de lait, qui, à ma grande satisfaction, s’effectuent toujours dans des bouteilles d’un demi-litre. Toutefois, ce n’est pas une question de tous les instants, mais une question fondamentale! Je voudrais vraiment savoir quelles ressources la Commission compte consacrer à la mise en œuvre de ses politiques. Sur le marché unique, nous savons que M. McCreevy estime que 90 % de la législation est déjà en place. L’appliquer est fondamental. Où dit-on quelles ressources la Commission consacre à ses initiatives? Où dit-on quelles ressources la Commission consacre à un plan de transposition de la directive sur les services que nous allons adopter demain et qui constitue un élément fondamental? Si la Commission n’y consacre pas de ressources, la législation ne sera pas mise en œuvre. Je voudrais demander à Mme Wallström, qui est la commissaire responsable de la communication que je sache, de regrouper le prochain paquet. Je ne veux pas que la politique du marché unique soit éparpillée dans tout ce document: je veux que la priorité pour le marché unique soit définie au sein d’un seul document, en compagnie des actions y afférentes, des ressources pour la mise en œuvre et du plan de simplification de la Commission, et je veux que ce document indique également le pourcentage de ressources que la Commission y consacre. Ce serait un document logique et clair, ainsi qu’une communication claire. Enfin, en ce qui concerne la directive sur les services, je suis ravi que M. Schulz soit là, car j’ai lu dans un communiqué de presse qu’il a fait publier aujourd’hui que la directive sur les services est une grande réussite pour le groupe socialiste. Eh bien, chers collègues, c’est une grande réussite pour ce Parlement et pour nous tous qui travaillons ensemble. J’espère que les personnes auront l’humilité de l’accepter. Je constate cependant qu’il a enfin rejoint notre club libéral, vu que le communiqué dit qu’il soutient la nécessaire à l’entreprise et la promesse de création d’emplois. Bienvenu au club de la libéralisation du marché, Monsieur Schulz!"@fr⁸ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@hu¹¹ "Signora Presidente, vorrei cominciare affrontando la questione del mercato interno. Penso di essere fuori contesto, perché il mercato interno è già stato discusso da alcuni colleghi. Tuttavia, a nome del mio gruppo, accolgo con favore la revisione della strategia per il mercato unico. Sono lieto che ora ci si concentri sulla definizione “mercato unico”, perché descrive in modo molto più preciso ciò per cui stiamo lavorando. Daremo quindi alla Commissione grande sostegno per tale revisione e anche per altre iniziative volte a migliorare il funzionamento del mercato unico. Ciò mi porta a una preoccupazione più generale che nutro riguardo al programma di lavoro e alle priorità che sono state presentate. E’ un grande miglioramento rispetto a quello dello scorso anno, sul quale ero stato molto critico, che conteneva un elenco interminabile di proposte senza un ordine di priorità. L’elenco è ancora lungo. Se ben ricordo, sono previste 21 iniziative e, come ha affermato il collega, onorevole Grosch, la differenza tra iniziative strategiche e priorità non è del tutto chiara. Ribadisco che un elenco contenente più di cinque priorità non è un elenco di priorità. Tuttavia, vorrei fare un’osservazione fondamentale, cioè che per la questione dell’attuazione, che sono lieto sia stata inclusa, si fornisce una descrizione pittoresca, “attuazione: un lavoro quotidiano”, come se fosse una questione di (abbiamo ancora le consegne quotidiane di latte in Inghilterra, e sono lieto di dire in bottiglie da una pinta). In ogni caso, non è una questione di è una questione fondamentale! Vorrei davvero sapere quali risorse la Commissione sta destinando all’attuazione delle sue politiche. Sul mercato unico, sappiamo che il Commissario McCreevy stima che il 90 per cento della legislazione sia già in vigore. L’attuazione è fondamentale. Dove si trova scritto quali risorse la Commissione sta destinando alle sue iniziative? Dove si trova scritto quali risorse la Commissione sta destinando a un piano per la trasposizione della direttiva sui servizi che approveremo domani, che costituisce un atto fondamentale? Se la Commissione non stanzia risorse a tal fine, essa non sarà attuata. Vorrei chiedere al Commissario Wallström, che dovrebbe essere responsabile della comunicazione, di raggruppare insieme il prossimo pacchetto. Non voglio che la politica relativa al mercato unico sia sparsa in tutto il documento: voglio che la priorità del mercato unico sia descritta insieme con le relative azioni, le risorse necessarie per l’attuazione e il piano di semplificazione della Commissione, e voglio che tutto questo sia raggruppato insieme, con la percentuale di risorse che la Commissione intende destinarvi. In tal modo si avrebbero un documento logico e preciso e una comunicazione chiara. Infine, riguardo alla direttiva sui servizi, sono lieto che l’onorevole Schulz sia presente, perché ho letto in un comunicato stampa che ha rilasciato oggi che la direttiva sui servizi è un enorme successo del gruppo socialista. Bene, onorevoli colleghi di questa ala del Parlamento, è un enorme successo del Parlamento e di tutti noi che lavoriamo insieme. Mi auguro che si abbia l’umiltà di riconoscerlo. Tuttavia, ho notato che si è infine unito al nostro liberale, perché nel comunicato stampa afferma di sostenere la necessaria per le imprese e per la creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro. Benvenuto nel della liberalizzazione del mercato, onorevole Schulz!"@it¹² "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@lt¹⁴ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@lv¹³ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@mt¹⁵ "Mevrouw de Voorzitter, allereerst wil ik graag de kwestie van de interne markt aan de orde stellen. Ik houd me geloof ik niet aan de juiste volgorde, want de interne markt is al eerder besproken door enkele collega’s. Namens onze fractie wil ik echter zeggen dat wij de herziening van de interne-marktstrategie toejuichen. Het doet me deugd dat we ons nu concentreren op de benaming ‘interne markt’ omdat deze veel nauwkeuriger beschrijft waar we mee bezig zijn. Daarom zullen we de Commissie hierbij veel steun verlenen, evenals bij andere initiatieven die tot doel hebben de interne markt beter te laten functioneren. Dat brengt me bij een zorg van meer algemene aard met betrekking tot het werkprogramma en de prioriteiten die ons zijn gepresenteerd. Dit programma is een grote verbetering ten opzichte van dat van vorig jaar, waarop ik veel kritiek had en dat een zeer lange lijst van niet-prioritaire voorstellen bevatte. We hebben nog steeds een lange lijst voorstellen. Ik geloof dat er 21 initiatieven zijn, en zoals collega Grosch al zei, is het verschil tussen strategische initiatieven en prioriteiten niet geheel duidelijk. Ik zou nogmaals willen opmerken dat een prioriteitenlijst met meer dan vijf prioriteiten helemaal geen prioriteitenlijst is. Ik wil echter fundamenteel opmerken dat de kwestie rond ‘delivery’ (resultaten leveren), die tot mijn grote genoegen is opgenomen in het programma, schilderachtig wordt omschreven als ‘delivery - een dagelijkse taak’ als ware het een routinekwestie. In Engeland wordt nog steeds iedere dag de melk aan huis geleverd, en tot mijn genoegen in flessen van een . Het is echter geen routinekwestie, maar een essentiële kwestie! Ik wil heel graag weten welke middelen de Commissie uittrekt voor de tenuitvoerlegging van haar beleid. Wat de interne markt betreft weten we dat volgens de inschatting van de heer McCreevy 90 procent van de wetgeving reeds van kracht is. Resultaten leveren is essentieel, maar waar staat welke middelen de Commissie uittrekt voor haar initiatieven? Waar staat welke middelen de Commissie uittrekt voor een plan tot omzetting van de dienstenrichtlijn die we morgen gaan aannemen, en dat een essentieel document is? Als de Commissie daar geen middelen voor uittrekt, zal het niet worden geleverd. Ik wil commissaris Wallström, die naar ik begrepen heb verantwoordelijk is voor communicatie, vragen of het volgende pakket gegroepeerd kan worden. Ik zie niet graag dat het beleid voor de interne markt door dit hele document verspreid staat. Ik wil dat de prioriteit voor de interne markt uiteengezet wordt, met daarnaast de acties die worden ondernomen, dan de middelen die er zijn om resultaten te leveren en tot slot het vereenvoudigingsplan van de Commissie. Ik wil dat dit alles tot één geheel wordt samengevoegd met het percentage van de middelen dat de Commissie ervoor uittrekt. Dat zou een logisch en helder document zijn, met duidelijke communicatie. Ten slotte, wat de dienstenrichtlijn betreft, ben ik zeer verheugd dat de heer Schulz aanwezig is, omdat ik uit een persbericht dat hij vandaag heeft doen uitgaan, heb begrepen dat de dienstenrichtlijn een enorm succes is voor de sociaal-democratische fractie. Welnu, collega’s aan deze zijde van het Parlement, het is een enorm succes voor dit Parlement en voor ons allemaal, dankzij onze samenwerking. Ik hoop dat men de bescheidenheid heeft dat te erkennen. Ik zie echter dat hij zich eindelijk heeft aangesloten bij onze liberale club, want in het bericht staat dat hij de steunt die noodzakelijk is om te ondernemen, alsmede de belofte van nieuwe banen. Welkom bij de club voor de liberalisering van de markt, mijnheer Schulz!"@nl³ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@pl¹⁶ "Senhora Presidente, gostaria de começar por abordar a questão do mercado interno. Penso que não estou a respeitar a sequência, visto que o mercado interno já foi discutido anteriormente por alguns dos meus colegas, mas quero saudar, em nome dos membros do nosso grupo, a revisão da estratégia do mercado interno. Estou satisfeito porque estamos a concentrar-nos na expressão “mercado interno”, que descreve com muito maior exactidão o objecto do nosso trabalho. Vamos, por conseguinte, apoiar fortemente a Comissão nesta e noutras iniciativas tendentes a melhorar o funcionamento do mercado único. Isto leva-me a uma preocupação mais geral que tenho relativamente ao programa de trabalho e às prioridades tal como nos foram apresentados. Trata-se de uma grande melhoria em relação ao que tivemos no ano passado, que continha uma lista muito longa de propostas sem prioridades definidas e sobre o qual fui muito crítico. Continuamos a ter uma longa lista de propostas. Penso que são 21 iniciativas e, como disse o meu colega Grosch, a diferença entre iniciativas estratégicas e prioridades não é totalmente clara. Gostaria mais uma vez de salientar que uma lista com mais de cinco prioridades não é de todo uma lista de prioridades. No entanto, a principal observação que quero fazer é que a questão da apresentação de resultados, que tenho o prazer de dizer que está aqui incluída, é descrita de forma pitoresca sob o título “Apresentar resultados ( em inglês): uma tarefa diária”, como se se tratasse de uma questão rotineira – na Inglaterra, ainda se faz a entrega ( ) diária de leite e apraz-me dizer que em garrafas de meio litro. Não se trata, contudo, de uma questão rotineira mas sim de uma questão fundamental! Efectivamente, quero saber quais são os recursos que a Comissão vai disponibilizar para pôr em prática as suas políticas. Quanto ao mercado único, sabemos que, segundo os cálculos do Comissário McCreevy, 90% da legislação já está em vigor. A apresentação de resultados é fundamental. Onde é que se indicam os recursos que a Comissão destina às suas iniciativas? Onde é que indicam os recursos que a Comissão destina a um plano de transposição da directiva relativa aos serviços que amanhã vamos aprovar e que é um documento fundamental? Se a Comissão não tem recursos para o efeito, não pode apresentar resultados. Gostaria de pedir à Senhora Comissária Wallström, que pelo que sei é responsável pela comunicação, que o próximo pacote seja apresentado em conjunto. Não quero ver a política do mercado único dispersa por todo este documento: quero que a prioridade do mercado único seja apresentada juntamente com as acções a desenvolver, com os meios para apresentação de resultados e com o plano de simplificação da Comissão, e quero que tudo isto seja reunido com a percentagem dos recursos que a Comissão lhes atribui. Isso sim, seria um documento lógico e claro e uma comunicação clara. Por fim, no que se refere à directiva relativa aos serviços, apraz-me verificar que o senhor deputado Schulz se encontra aqui, pois vejo num comunicado de imprensa hoje divulgado que ele afirma que a directiva relativa aos serviços constitui um êxito enorme para o Grupo Socialista. Pois bem, colegas desta ala da Assembleia, é um êxito enorme para este Parlamento e para todos nós que trabalhámos em conjunto. Espero que as pessoas tenham a humildade de reconhecer isso. Observo, contudo, que ele se juntou finalmente ao nosso clube liberal, porque o comunicado refere que ele apoia a à empresa e a promessa de criação de novos postos de trabalho. Seja bem-vindo ao clube da liberalização do mercado, Senhor Deputado Schulz!"@pt¹⁷ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@sk¹⁸ "Madam President, I wish to begin by addressing the question of the internal market. I think I am out of sequence, because the internal market was discussed earlier by some of my colleagues. However, I want to welcome the review of the single market strategy on behalf of the members of our group. I am pleased we are now focusing on the name ‘single market’ because that describes much more accurately what we are working for. We will therefore give the Commission a lot of support for that and indeed for other initiatives to make the single market work better. That leads me onto a broader concern I have on the work programme and the priorities as presented to us. It is a big improvement on the one we had last year, of which I was very critical and in which there was a very long list of unprioritised proposals. We still have a long list of proposals. I think there are 21 initiatives and, as my colleague, Mrs Grosch, said, the difference between strategic initiatives and priorities is not entirely clear. I would again make the point that a list of priorities longer than five is not a list of priorities at all. However, I want to make the fundamental point that the issue of delivery, which I am pleased to say is included, is picturesquely described as ‘delivery a daily task’ as if it were a routine issue – we still have daily milk deliveries in England and I am pleased to say in pint bottles. However, it is not a routine issue but a fundamental one! I really want to know what resources the Commission is putting behind the implementation of its policies. On the single market, we know that Mr McCreevy estimates that 90% of the legislation is already in place. Delivery is fundamental. Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind its initiatives? Where does it say what resources the Commission is putting behind a transposition plan for the Services Directive we will approve tomorrow, which is a fundamental piece of work? If the Commission does not put the resources behind it, it will not be delivered. I should like to ask Commissioner Wallström, whom I understand is responsible for communication, for the next package to be grouped together. I do not want to see the single market policy scattered throughout this document: I want to see the priority for the single market set out with the actions next to it, the delivery resources next to that and the Commission’s simplification plan next to that, and I want all this to be lumped together with the percentage of resources the Commission is putting behind it. That would be a logical and clear document and clear communication. Finally, on the Services Directive, I am delighted Mr Schulz is here, because I note from a press release he issued today that the Services Directive is an enormous success for the Socialist Group. Well, colleagues on this side of the House, it is an enormous success for this Parliament and all of us working together. I hope people will have the humility to accept that. However, I notice that he has finally joined our liberal club because the release states that he supports the necessary to enterprise and the promise of new job creation. Welcome to the market liberalisation club, Mr Schulz!"@sl¹⁹ "Fru talman! Jag vill börja med att ta upp frågan om den inre marknaden. Jag tror att jag är ur fas, för den inre marknaden diskuterades tidigare av några av mina kolleger. Men jag vill på min grupps vägnar välkomna granskningen av strategin för den inre marknaden. Det gläder mig att vi nu fokuserar på benämningen ”inre marknad”, för den beskriver mycket mer träffsäkert vad vi arbetar för. Vi kommer därför att ge kommissionen stort stöd i detta, och i andra initiativ för förbättring av den inre marknaden. Det leder mig in på ett större bekymmer för mig i fråga om arbetsprogrammet och prioriteringarna, som de har presenterats för oss. Det är en stor förbättring i jämförelse med det vi hade förra året, som jag var mycket kritisk till och som innehöll en mycket lång lista över oprioriterade förslag. Listan över förslag är fortfarande lång. Jag tror att den omfattar 21 initiativ och, som min kollega Grosch sa, är skillnaden mellan strategiska initiativ och prioriteringar inte helt tydlig. Jag vill återigen påpeka att en lista över prioriteringar som innehåller fler än fem sådana inte är någon lista över prioriteringar. Jag vill dock göra det grundläggande påpekandet att leveransfrågan, och det gläder mig att se att den är inbegripen, beskrivs pittoreskt som ”leverans är en daglig uppgift”, som om det vore en rutinsak – det finns fortfarande daglig mjölkleverans i England, glädjande nog sker den i flaskor i pint. Det är emellertid inte någon rutinsak, utan någonting grundläggande! Jag skulle verkligen vilja veta vilka resurser som kommissionen lägger på genomförandet av sin politik. Vad gäller den inre marknaden känner vi till att Charlie McCreevy beräknar att 90 procent av lagstiftningen redan är vidtagen. Att leverera är någonting grundläggande. Var står det vilka resurser kommissionen lägger på sina initiativ? Var står det vilka resurser kommissionen lägger på planen för införlivandet av tjänstedirektivet som vi ska godkänna i morgon, vilket är ett grundläggande arbete? Om kommissionen inte lägger resurser på det kommer det inte att levereras. Jag skulle vilja be kommissionsledamot Margot Wallström, som jag har förstått ansvarar för kommunikation, att gruppera nästa paket samlat. Jag vill inte att åtgärderna för den inre marknaden ska vara utspridda över hela dokumentet: jag vill att prioriteringen av den inre marknaden ska anges med åtgärderna bredvid, resurserna som läggs på att leverera bredvid dessa och kommissionens förenklingsplan i sin tur bredvid dem, och jag vill att allt detta ska slås ihop med den procentandel resurser som kommissionen ska lägga på detta. Det skulle bli ett logiskt och klart dokument och ett tydligt meddelande. Slutligen, vad gäller tjänstedirektivet gläder det mig att Martin Schulz är närvarande, eftersom jag genom ett pressmeddelande som han publicerade i dag kunde notera att tjänstedirektivet innebär en enorm framgång för den socialdemokratiska gruppen. Nåväl, kolleger som företräder den här sidan av kammaren, det är en enorm framgång för parlamentet och för oss alla som arbetar tillsammans. Jag hoppas att alla kommer att vara ödmjuka nog att erkänna det. Jag kan dock notera att han slutligen har anslutit sig till vår liberala klubb, för det står i pressmeddelandet att han stöder den flexibilitet som är nödvändig för företagen och löftena om nya arbetstillfällen. Välkommen till klubben för avreglering av marknaden, herr Schulz!"@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE ). –"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "club"¹² "delivery"¹⁷ "fleksibilitet"² "flessibilità"¹² "flexibilidad"²⁰ "flexibilidade necessária"¹⁷ "flexibiliteit"³ "flexibility"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "flexibilité"⁸ "pint"³ "routine"¹² "ευελιξία"¹⁰