Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-237"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.7.3-237"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying that I empathise with many of my fellow MEPs, including those occupying the EPP benches, in terms of their feelings of anger and even frustration, and I also share these feelings, Mr President-in-Office of the Council.
We have cooperated for years in order to break the deadlock in the issue of the free movement of persons and hence of frontier workers. It is utterly disgraceful that the European Commission’s proposal on coordination and extension is, after so many years, still on the Council’s table, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. To tell you the truth, Mr Danielsson, I had hoped from the bottom of my heart that you, on behalf of the Swedish Presidency, would have shown the greatest commitment to ultimately making decisions, and to at least producing a timeframe indicating when a decision would be taken on this important regulation. I happen to know that the Belgian Presidency is very much prepared to reach political agreement on the content of this dossier and on the timing. Mr Danielsson, I believe we need this, but we cannot do this, of course, without Sweden’s strong commitment.
Our group is also of the opinion that pressure should be stepped up. But our group does not believe that the annual technical amendment, Mr Pronk, is the right way to achieve this. It does not move the issue on frontier workers along one inch, not even if we call on Parliament’s codecision. You are all too aware of this. Quite the reverse in fact. A number of vital adjustments which are equally important, such as the situation of the Belgian frontier workers who should be able to enjoy supplementary French pensions, Mr Pronk, are under threat in this dossier. The best approach is to continue to form a united front in these issues and not to use this directive to pull cheap party-political stunts at the expense of frontier workers. This is not why we pursue this strategy.
Whatever the case, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that the Belgian Presidency and the Swedish Presidency should facilitate a speedy breakthrough in this issue. In fact, it should be possible for the final discussions in the Council to coincide with the prospect of a conference on frontier work, which the European Commission has promised us. I hope that this will at least win over the hesitant Member States and that we will have clarity in this matter by the end of this year.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that the best line of attack is not a divided one, for this is not the impression we want to convey to the Council. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, something which worries me a great deal is the fact that the Council apparently does not intend to extend the scope of the regulation on social security to include third-country nationals. At least, that is what I could gather from the whole dispute regarding the legal base.
I have to tell you in all honesty – and I echo Mr Rocard’s view on this – that this is diametrically opposed to the conclusions reached in Tampere, where it was decided that third-country nationals should be given equal treatment, and it is obvious that this Parliament will not accept this unacceptable discrimination. But if I can ask you something: I would very much like to know how Sweden, not only as the country holding the presidency, but also as a Member State of this European Union, intends to break the deadlock in this issue and how you stand on the extension to include third-country nationals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples