Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-015"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Services of general interest (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060926.3.2-015"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-26-Speech-2-0162
lpv:speaker	lp:Alain Lipietz2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I very much appreciated the content of President Barroso’s speech. I appreciated the intention he announced to present one or more legislative drafts – I shall return to the question of one or more in a moment – for adoption by codecision as well as the four principles he invoked. I believe it was important to reiterate those principles. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs rejected our proposal for a simple reference to the substance of Article 122 of the Constitutional Treaty and, what is worse, for a simple reference to Article 86 of the present Treaty. The latter article, as you pointed out, specifies that, in the event of a conflict between the market and public-service requirements in law or in practice, the public service must take precedence. I believe it is extremely important that the parliamentary draft reaffirms what we adopted at the time of the Constitutional Treaty, namely the text of Article 122, and confirms that at least we still believe in Article 86 of the present Treaty. What we would like is to go much further in pinning down the precise implications of our forthcoming vote. If there is one point on which I agree with Mrs in't Veld, it is that Mr Rapkay’s diplomatic and very judiciously calculated statement about the need to legislate can be equally easily interpreted to mean one thing or the other. We will therefore ask you, in accordance with both the Treaty of Amsterdam and the interinstitutional agreement, to present us with a draft directive by virtue of the right of legislative initiative vested in this Parliament. We are also entirely in agreement with the four principles you outlined to us. If we disagree with Mrs in't Veld, the precise bone of contention is subsidiarity. I regard it as a grave misjudgement to talk of strict subsidiarity when the Services Directive is actually the applicable instrument in the absence of a specific directive on services of general interest. The fact is that we have watched the substance and scope of the Services Directive vary incessantly from day to day and from week to week. At one point, subsidised housing was included. Then it was almost excluded, only to be reinstated again, though not fully. We need only compare our parliamentary draft with those of the Commission and the Council to see the lack of agreement on the public services that fall within the ambit of the Services Directive. We need to legislate today to set these matters straight."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph