Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.7.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities has not been able to vote in favour of the Andersson report. This does, of course, contain a number of good observations. For example, it is acknowledged on page 15 of the explanatory statement that “the different levels of development and traditions in the field of social security in the Member States make it impossible to bring about uniform harmonisation of the Member States’ social security systems”. Now, the concept of “uniform harmonisation” is one of those muddled expressions which totally obfuscates the integration process in question. It is also true, as it states in the explanatory statement, that harmonisation could be damaging as “it might place greater demands on weaker Member States at the same time as competitive considerations might exert pressure on more socially developed countries to cut back on social security. No-one would benefit from this type of harmonisation”. The situation, however, is that a social model is being established whose real purpose is harmonisation, and uniform harmonisation into the bargain. Paragraph D points out that “the Union may provide added value by adoption of proper binding and effective convergence criteria”, and the report goes on to emphasise that the development of this convergence process is to be promoted by means of joint talks between the Ecofin Council and the Social Affairs and Employment Councils. Finally, paragraph 7 emphasises that “the social convergence process must be accompanied by an effective and ambitious fiscal coordination”. And, in this regard, we approach the heart of the matter. This project, with its social harmonisation, does not constitute social policy. Instead, it is an extension to the EU’s EMU project, which is of quite special interest to the three countries which remain outside EMU and can rescue themselves from the sinking ship, namely Great Britain, Sweden and Denmark. It is therefore important for us to emphasise that we cannot support a proposal whose essential rationale is to extend the EMU project."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples