Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Bartenstein, we could have marked St Valentine's Day by debating a more romantic subject than the Bolkestein directive. Things being what they are, though, what comments can the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left make on the latest rehash of such an emblematic draft directive?
First of all, we cannot help but notice with pleasure that the exceptional social and political movements against this directive, which have been growing for more than a year, have achieved their first result: we have managed to put the supporters of the directive on the defensive. After all, as Mr McCreevy, the Commission's spokesman and Mr Bolkestein's successor, has just emphasised, we have to be realistic – there have been referendums in France and in the Netherlands. Or, as John Monks, Secretary-General of the European Trade Union Confederation, said, the success of the 'no' vote 'changed the European landscape [because] everyone subsequently understood that social matters must be at the heart of European policies'. That is why we are not turning our noses up at the changes made during the various negotiations on the directive in the Commission.
However, the question that arises is whether the directive, in its amended form, has become a good directive – whether its essential substance has changed. In short, can workers now, as some claim, be reassured as to the future of their social rights? Unfortunately, our answer to that is 'no', and I think that those who claim otherwise have a heavy responsibility. Firstly, they are seriously underestimating the impact of the current Community acquis that this directive, if it is adopted, will fit into. On top of the treaties themselves, current jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, to which Commissioner McCreevy has just referred insistently and very significantly, systematically protects businesses that provide services on the basis of the country of origin principle, and consistently criticises the rules of the host country that are accused of hindering the activities of those businesses.
Faced with this hijacking of sovereignty, I think that we need to organise a proper counter-offensive if we are going to put a brake on the race to the bottom with the social acquis. By removing all explicit references to the country of destination principle, though, the compromise reached by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats leaves itself open to the harassment of the Commission and the Court.
The supporters of this compromise also greatly overestimate, in my view, the effect of the social guarantees they claim to have introduced into the draft directive. For example, all a business based in a country with less rigorous social standards will have to do is provide its services throughout the EU using 'self-employed' people, and the host country will lose the right to require it to comply with local rules. Another example: it has been said that the provisions on the posting of workers now included in the draft directive make it possible to ensure that employees in other Member States stick to the maximum working time. Big deal! I would remind you that the maximum working week is 48 hours in the EU and even 65 hours in some countries.
These same provisions are also supposed to guarantee respect for the collective agreements. In fact, nothing is less certain. This is a grey area in Community law, as was recently acknowledged by the spokesman of the Commission's 'Internal Market and Services' Directorate-General. In such an uncertain context, we must rule out any ambiguity, any half measure and any room for interpretation given to the Commission and the Court. The right message to give them is clear: we must reject the directive in Thursday's vote and, if we do not succeed in that now, it will remain our aim throughout the process.
In the meantime, my group will, at the very least, work to insert into the directive a specific reference to the precedence of the rules of the country of destination and to limit the scope of the text as much as possible, in particular by excluding all public services. From the Atlantic to the Baltic, from Lapland to the Peloponnese, we say yes to equality, yes to solidarity, yes to the promotion of the rights of all, and thus no to the Bolkestein directive. In this spirit, I join with you, Mr President, in warmly welcoming to Strasbourg the tens of thousands of employees who have come to defend their rights and a concept of a Europe in which they can once again find their way."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples