Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.28.2-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, as a new Member of the European Parliament, I should like to say that, having attended these debates for 18 months now, I have discovered the richness and the quality of the work done in this Chamber.
I should like to pay tribute to our Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, to its late chairman, Mr Whitehead, to its rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt and to the draftsman of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Mrs Van Lancker. I should like to thank those at the helm of our group, to whose work we owe the draft we are debating today: Mr Harbour, the shadow rapporteur and coordinator of our group; Mrs Thyssen, our vice-chairman; and our indefatigable secretariat. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of Mrs Descamps and of Mrs Bachelot, who are both members of the French delegation.
Thanks to all these men and women, we have made a significant breakthrough: the compromise is a new text. First and foremost, it establishes the internal market in services. This draft takes away from the Court of Justice the de facto monopoly it has been exercising for the past 50 years with regard to implementing the principles of the Treaties. The internal market in services is based on mutual confidence and entails administrative cooperation, the simplification of administrative procedures and the abolition of protectionist obstacles, in terms both of the setting up of service companies and of the temporary provision of services. The draft applies to services of general economic interest only where the freedom of establishment is concerned, while it excludes many essential services such as audiovisual services and the cinema, gambling activities, health care and the legal professions. The compromise therefore proposes that Parliament vote in favour of a framework act geared towards economic growth, innovation and employment. That is what the nations of Europe want.
Yet the compromise also respects our model and our national collective preferences. Will the directive lead to the dismantling of our social standards? Will it cause a levelling down effect? With the Commission’s first proposal, the risk was plain to see. That is why we rejected it. The compromise proposed to you, however, constitutes a barrier to social dumping, is based on subsidiarity and adopts a sensible and restrictive approach to implementing the freedom to provide services. It is made absolutely clear that the compromise excludes social standards and labour law. Competition in the social sphere is prohibited. Many national rules are respected where freedom of establishment is concerned, and the freedom to provide services is accompanied by the guarantee that Member States can apply their national rules when doing so is justified by the public interest. This is a true compromise: it is the subject of criticism from both sides, which clearly shows that we have found a happy medium.
On behalf of my French colleagues, I therefore hope that you will support the compromise by voting in favour of it by a very large majority. Doing so would be a victory for the European Parliament and it would be a victory for the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples