Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-15-Speech-1-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991115.7.1-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I could tell my good friend, Mr Pronk, that if he will have a word with Mr Aznar, I will have a word with Mr Blair. It is a majority proposal. We have problems with a number of governments.
I should like to thank the Commissioner for what she has said. I see now the sense in the strategy that she is adopting. I hope the delay in a revised proposal might lead to progress. I would say this, however: please bear in mind that if part of this strategy is that a new proposal is brought forward after the turn of the year that is substantially different to the first then we, Parliament, would need to be consulted from the beginning once again. Please bear that in mind.
One argument in addition to the list of crunch points that you mentioned in your introduction that has been deployed by my own government and others is that of subsidiarity. It is not a very good argument in this particular area. In the ten years up to 1996, following the introduction of the Single Act, there was a tripling in the number of mergers and take-overs in both the service and manufacturing sectors. An interesting thing is that two-thirds of those mergers and take-overs were at national rather than transnational level. They were, however, directly related to the completion of the internal market. Therefore developments at Member State level are inextricably linked to the changes we have put in place at European level. That is one of the strongest arguments against subsidiarity – denying progress in this area.
In the 1970s our governments, despite the unanimity rule, introduced a directive on transfers, one on collective redundancies and one on insolvency to try to bring about responsible restructuring following the oil shocks. It is absolutely dreadful that the Council now seems to be paralysed when it comes to this directive, to the worker involvement in the company statute and indeed the Commission in relation to a revision of the Works Council Directive. We need to get this moving once again."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples