Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Madam President. Now, looking at the latest amendments jointly submitted by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group, it seems a shame that the Services Directive was not adopted before the European Union’s last enlargement. Clearly, public opinion in the older Member States, to which both of the largest political groups have paid heed, currently perceives all market liberalisation measures as threats, although in fact the aim of these measures is to make the European Union stronger. I would therefore firstly like to rebut the erroneous view that the liberalisation of the services market is beneficial only for the cheap end of the market, namely, for the new Member States. Already today in high added-value services sectors – in financial business and consultancy services – this flow is greater from the older to the new Member States. The movement of services following liberalisation is not and cannot be one-way. Thus, for example, the proportion of the older Member States in total added value in the European Union construction sector constitutes 95%, while in the business services sphere the percentage is even greater: 98%. For this reason the markets of the new Member States will definitely have a permanent place for the services sector of the older Member States, with its high added value, capacity and capital. The application of the country of origin principle to the provision of services would open up the European Union’s internal market to the largest service providers in the Member States – small and medium-sized enterprises. Maintaining the country of origin principle would channel a portion of competition pressure in the labour market into the business sphere. That would have a beneficial impact on the development of business activity in the whole of Europe. Employees working outside their own countries would retain a close link with their countries of origin through their national businesses. The new Member States are interested in the export of goods and services, not in the export of the labour force. One of the arguments against the country of origin principle is the fear that living standards in the older Member States would be under threat, but the removal of the country of origin principle or its significant restriction would make the Services Directive ineffective, and that would definitely erode those standards in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples