Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.8.3-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, as we are only a matter of weeks away from enlargement it is most welcome for Parliament to be sending a strong signal that it wants the internal market to be strengthened to serve effectively the interests and aspirations of more than 450 million European citizens and well over 20 million companies.
I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Miller, and his colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for all their hard work in raising the profile of the internal market over the last few years. Indeed, they can claim credit for some of the measures in the Commission's internal market strategy, as these were originally their ideas.
The internal market is one of Europe's finest achievements. Since 1993 it has helped to create more than 2.5 million extra jobs and has added nearly EUR 900 billion, cumulatively, to our collective prosperity. There is much more to come! There are still major gaps in the legal framework, such as on services and taxation. Furthermore, in a Union of 25 Member States or more, we need to strengthen the foundations on which the internal market is built.
The internal market strategy 2003-2006 sets out exactly what needs to be done by whom and by when. It is a ten-point plan for making Europe better off. There is no time now to go into all the details of Parliament's reports or, indeed, of the internal market strategy. Therefore, I will focus on a few key issues.
I welcome Parliament's support for strengthening the mutual recognition principle. I know that views differ on where the balance needs to be struck between mutual recognition and harmonisation. The benefits of mutual recognition are that it respects national traditions and avoids further regulation at the level of the European Union. We all know that negotiating harmonising directives will be no sinecure with 25 Member States around the table. Therefore, if we can avoid more legislation, so much the better.
The point, however, is not to impose mutual recognition at all costs. By getting Member States to notify cases where mutual recognition cannot be relied upon we shall be much better placed to propose a targeted solution which does not go beyond what is necessary to kick-start free movement again.
I share Parliament's concern over the slow implementation of internal market directives. Late transposition creates legal insecurity and can cause significant harm to businesses and citizens from other Member States.
It is difficult to understand why Member States that fulfil their obligations do not hold to task other Member States that are consistently late in doing so. The Commission, of course, takes immediate legal action where Member States fail to transpose on time. Nor do we shy away from hanging Member States' dirty linen out to dry. Public embarrassment often has more impact than a pile of infringement proceedings in the post.
Late transposition, however, is only a symptom of a larger problem. The bottom line is that we shall not have a fully functioning internal market as long as Member States treat the internal market like a rented car that they do not need to wash or maintain. I am therefore attracted by Parliament's suggestion that Member States should establish internal market offices that would be responsible for good internal market behaviour and to which people could apply if they have a problem. We shall certainly pursue this line of thinking."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples