Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-104"

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.20060216.15.4-104"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-16-Speech-4-1052
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; Quaestors (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; Parliament's Bureau (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3
lpv:translated text	". I have told anyone who is willing to listen that I am in favour of a compromise, but I am not prepared to be taken for a fool. I am in favour of the country of origin principle. The negotiators from my group promised me that the revised wording stipulating that the Member States must respect the service providers’ right to provide a service in a Member State other than the one in which they are established is identical to this principle. If such is the case, then I am in a position to vote in favour of the compromise. The negotiators from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are, however, proclaiming loud and long that they have succeeded in killing off this principle, which they wrongly consider to be responsible for all economic and social ills. The disappearance of the country of origin principle from Article 16 would lead to a state of legal uncertainty for the service provider, who would have to play it by ear under the control of the Court of Justice. Moreover, the safeguard clauses in paragraph 3 go beyond the case law and give the impression that one can demand the application of the law of the country of destination on the basis of a simple ‘need’, without any tests carried out in terms of proportionality and non-discrimination. The resulting uncertainty about these crucial provisions leads me to reject certain parts of the compromise text relating to Article 16. ("@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph