Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.2.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have great admiration for what Commissioner Bolkestein has achieved and is achieving within the internal market. Unfortunately, I do not see eye to eye with him today, for I am of the opinion that the mediation outcome should be rejected for the following reasons.
First of all, the proposal conflicts with legislation and practices in my own country, the Netherlands. Although the Dutch Finance Minister may well have stated in a letter yesterday to the Dutch Parliament that the Directive should, in his opinion, be introduced, whoever seeks advice from the social partners in the Netherlands knows better. In fact, until two years ago, the Dutch government was also opposed to this directive. Things can change.
The Dutch system makes provision for protecting companies against hostile takeovers. It aims to afford the Board of the target partnership the opportunity of weighing up all the vested interests in the event of a hostile bid. In this connection, the Board must have the company’s continuity in mind. The approach in Mr Bolkestein’s proposal is completely different. It leaves the decision concerning a hostile bid to the shareholders.
A second argument against Mr Bolkestein’s proposal is the inequality which it creates within Europe. Article 9 only prohibits the legal protection structures. All other methods of countering company takeovers, such as government intervention, are being left out of the equation.
Mr President, one final point. One of the arguments used in favour of adopting the directive is that it has undergone a great deal of doctoring for twelve years and that, if the compromise is rejected, all the work will have been in vain. That is not an argument, in my opinion. Mr Bolkestein has agreed to have studies carried out into a number of points. Besides, I am of the opinion that studies should have been carried out during the twelve years of preparation, not after adopting the directive, but that is just by the by. The Commission could prepare a fresh proposal for a directive very quickly which, if handled intelligently, could indeed provide a level playing field in Europe and could enter into force before the current proposal, which, after all, has a five-year transitional period."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples