Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.26.2-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I too would like to add my voice to those who have thanked Mrs Gebhardt and Mrs Van Lancker for their considerable work on this. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I have a feeling that the vote has already taken place, because people are talking with such certainty about what is in and what is out. Nothing is out until we vote on Thursday morning.
It is certainly clear that this directive needed a rewrite. It is a pity that Parliament is doing it; we asked the Commission to take it off the table and rewrite it, but it would not do so. As others have said, many of us here have found that the Commission’s behaviour during the whole debate about the directive has been highly problematic. We have been unable to get clarity; unable to get answers to specific questions; and there has been a lack of public response to amendments tabled, not least in our committee meetings, as well as a lack of an effective social impact assessment, which might have gone some way to allaying public fears about what is in this.
It is true that there are few issues of disagreement, but they are certainly extremely important ones. If we are looking at the international context, to some of us that is about GATS, where we have heard certain things about what is really, in theory, on the table and then we hear about background negotiating positions which are leading to something else.
Many of us have had big problems with the whole country of origin theory – I do not think it is a principle – and how this, for example, might fit with the ability of Member States to seek higher standards, which is also allowed. Again, many of our questions about how the overriding public interest will come into play in this have not been fully answered.
I would agree that health should be taken out of this directive; it should never have been there in the first place, and many of us look forward to a speedy proposal from the Commission on the issues of patient mobility and not service mobility, which is why it should not have been in the directive in the first place."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples