Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-11-Speech-4-093"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-04-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020411.4.4-093"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-04-11-Speech-4-0942
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in the end I voted in favour of Mr Fatuzzo’s report, despite the fact that some of the amendments that I had tabled with Mr Brok, on behalf of my group, had been rejected. It is a pity, because they clarified the aspects of pension policy for which the Member States are responsible and the – very few – aspects for which the European Union is competent. The oral amendment tabled by Mr Fatuzzo to our Amendment No 16 talks about the Commission's support for guaranteeing the right to a pension. The word ‘support’ may cause confusion. It must be clear that there can be no question of the Commission providing funding to enable the objectives laid down in this paragraph to be met, objectives with which all of us agree. The Commission cannot provide financial assistance: all it can do is support a process, as it does with open coordination. Moreover, we welcome the Commission’s initiative, in the same paragraph, seeking to guarantee safe and sustainable pensions. This would have been more than enough. I had not realised that our Socialist colleagues – who are after all quite vigilant when it comes to social security – thought that they had caused confusion here between Community competences and the sacrosanct principle of subsidiarity. Yesterday the entire Left in this House violently opposed the Barcelona proposal that it would be worthwhile and necessary for many more people over the age of 50 to work. In this case, we are in favour of subsidiarity, all the more so when we are talking about something for which the Member States have full – and not shared – responsibility, which is the case for the three pillars of our pension systems."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph