Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.8.2-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my serious concern regarding the first reading of this report that we are to debate today, even in spite of the remarkable work that Mr Meijer has done. We also support most of the amendments that he has tabled. However, on the deceptive pretext of seeking to make financial compensation from Member States to service providers compatible with Community legislation and to award public service transport contracts that are already open to private service providers, the Commission is once again attempting to work well outside its area of competence. By encroaching on the Member States’ methods of public management, the Commission is making a direct attack on local authorities’ freedom of management, and it must be said that, in doing so, it is denouncing the direct rule method of management used in France, which has proved its worth for many years. This shows that the aim is not to achieve better service for the benefit of the user, but to actually create, using liberal dogma, the internal market. In other sectors, such as telecommunications, energy and the postal services, it is freedom of choice that is at stake and, therefore, the very concept of public service.
In addition to the attack on the constitutional principle of freedom of administrative choice for local authorities, this is, more broadly speaking, an attack on the public sovereignty of Member States. Freedom of choice in public services and in its method of management, freedom of choice in terms of provider, partial freedom in sub-contracting, freedom to set prices and freedom of compensation are freedoms of Member States and their local authorities that have been withdrawn. Beyond the State, it is the citizen/user who will be slain on the altar of Community liberalism, because this proposal is a direct attack on local authority, which is the closest to the citizen and therefore is in the best position to manage the difficulties experienced by citizens on the ground. They already have the least power, in the less affluent areas which are even at risk of having no services at all. The social partners made no mistake, when they warned their MEPs at the vote in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. This illustrates perfectly the danger that everyone has spotted, and we are not dealing with subsidiarity that has been reintroduced here and there, or the odd possibility of derogating from the procedure that has been put in place, which should be enough to stop us seeing the truth. The citizen will see through this.
To sum up, I have reason to doubt this European project that, faced with ignorance and, at times, the distrust of our citizens, responds in a technocratic and dogmatic fashion by trying to wrestle power from the States and from local authorities, which efficiently manage the daily lives of citizens. We cannot accept these proposals and that is why we demand this report is rejected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples