Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-103"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060216.15.4-103"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-16-Speech-4-1042
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie-Noëlle Lienemann2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Parti socialiste (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-20--2006-12-31)3
lpv:translated text	". I voted against this text which, despite being something of an improvement on Mr Bolkestein’s draft, seriously threatens our social model. The country of origin principle is only formally, and not actually, abandoned because the text’s legal vacuum reintroduces it through the back door – (with the de facto application of the Rome Convention and of the proximity principle) – and leaves it to the Court of Justice to deal with any arbitrations that legislators should really take on, applying the host country principle. Services of general economic interest remain within the scope of the directive, a state of affairs that threatens public services, which have already been severely damaged in Europe. The votes confirmed an ultraliberal bias. The Member States are deprived of the resources needed to regulate certain professions and effectively to control the application of the directives such as the one relating to the posting of workers, which is a fragile barrier against social dumping. The European Union needs an alternative draft that includes the upwards harmonisation of social, environmental and consumer protection rules and that excludes public services, which require a protective framework directive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph