Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, it is rare for a draft directive to incite such passions. Mr Bolkestein has become the saviour for some, and the Antichrist for others. Listening to some of the speeches, however, it is clear that few people have actually read the initial text. Many of its opponents have not realised that Parliament has completely rewritten the so-called 'Bolkestein' proposal, and yet they are still calling on us to reject it. I would encourage them not to do so. Parliament must do its job as a legislator, otherwise the European Court of Justice will impose its case-law, which could be dangerous.
There are currently 53 cases relating to the free provision of services pending before the Court of Justice. The Court is obviously waiting for clarification from the European legislature. If the European Parliament did not do its work, the Court would do its own. I would encourage you to vote in favour of the compromise drawn up by Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Harbour, which opens up the internal market in services, whilst avoiding brutal and unfair competition and protecting the right of every state to defend its social model and its public services without discrimination.
Mr Bolkestein's proposal was clumsy, and it attempted to bypass the Community principle of gradual harmonisation with the country of origin principle. However, this principle is not laid down in the Treaties, even though it has been used, following Court of Justice case-law, to promote the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, services are provided by human beings, who have to be protected against social dumping. The country of origin principle encouraged a race to the bottom in regulatory terms, but the country of destination principle encourages stark and stupid protectionism. We have to abolish the protectionism and barriers to trade that have built up since 1957, particularly in the founding Member States.
The Treaty of Rome enshrined the aim of free movement of services. We are far from reaching that goal, even though our countries have essentially become service economies. Not all services can be exported. Public services will continue to be a matter for the public authorities. For public market services, the states are able to define what they mean by services of general economic interest by regulating how they are organised and financed.
In some countries, people are trying to deify the idea of public services without asking themselves whether public services are really services to the public. It is hard to accept, for example, that France is trying to protect its markets in what it calls public services, while French public and private companies are plundering other markets. The balance reached thanks to the work of Mrs Gebhardt, Mr Harbour, Mrs Van Lancker, Mrs Thyssen and others will guarantee that the states have control over the services provided to the citizens, whilst avoiding discriminatory measures.
I will end, Madam President, by saying that adopting this amended directive will consign Bolkestein to oblivion. Thanks to the new facilities, particularly provided via the one-stop shops, the Union's internal market will make progress."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples