Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-07-Speech-1-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050307.15.1-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, in his article in the current issue of Parliament’s magazine, Mr De Rossa stated that his resolution was carried unanimously in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. But the record shows that one Member voted against. That was me, and I intend to do so again this week with my UKIP colleagues. Let me explain.
At the centre of Mr De Rossa’s report is a stand-off between the Commission and the Council over the exportability of five benefits, three from the United Kingdom. Mr De Rossa suggests that the report should be adopted without delay, so that Regulation 1408/71 can be tidied up. Then he proposes that the European Court of Justice resolve the dispute over the five benefits. We believe that the decision on the United Kingdom benefit should be left to Her Majesty’s Government, which does not want them to be exportable. Indeed, the Council’s previously stated common position upholds that of Her Majesty’s Government. We therefore deplore the Commission’s change of mind. We believe that it should be for each Member State to define the basis on which its benefits are to be paid and to whom. We absolutely oppose the notion that the deadlock should be resolved by the European Court of Justice. Benefits are part of taxation systems. They are dual systems: taking from and giving back. To interfere in either is to interfere in the taxation system as a whole. Since the EU likes to keep up the pretence that it has no competence for issues of taxation, it should not therefore interfere at all in the benefits system.
To return, finally, to Mr De Rossa’s article, it is noted that Finland and Sweden also contest the listing of two allowances. We respect their stance. The article shows that the Commission has exempted the Irish carers’ allowance, as the Irish Government wished. It is wrong and iniquitous that the United Kingdom carers’ allowance has not been exempted. As regards the three United Kingdom benefits, let me say unequivocally that Her Majesty’s elected government should be treated like its Irish counterparts in that respect and that should be the end of the matter."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples