Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.3.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, in, Amendment 4 mentioned ‘mobility for the unemployed’. Does that mean bussing unemployed around the EU looking for work – at taxpayers’ expense? A Member State is liable for social security payments for someone who worked there but moved to another Member State and then became unemployed.
Amendment 148 suggests that the taxpayer should pay for travel for a medical examination in another Member State with a reimbursement system between Member States, no doubt using a complex EU formula. Member States may make decisions on invalidity which are binding on another Member State, although complicated by the degree of invalidity, but they may have rules against overlapping of benefits.
The rules will concern all EU citizens moving within the EU for any reason whatever. This includes legally resident third-country nationals who have worked in more than one Member State as well as, soon, stateless persons and refugees. In several places these reports claim to simplify regulations and modernise existing legislation for social security authorities, employers and citizens, while being very inclusive. There will be, apparently, no implication for the Community budget. It says that financial and administrative burdens will be reduced by the rules for coordination – which can only be done at Community level – but that this is not harmonisation. How can one have reimbursement, EU-determined formulae, a rule covering all movement and rules for coordination, without it being harmonisation? All in all, these reports are a mass of conflicting statements. If they are adopted, they will need a great deal of administrative effort, costing money which the report says is not needed.
Finally, the family here has an identity crisis. Birth and adoption allowances are, evidently, not family benefits. So when is a family not a family, and an adopted child is – well, what exactly?
I too would like to avoid an identity crisis. A ‘frontier worker’ is a person working in one Member State but residing in another providing they return home once a week. Well, this is France and I am going home tomorrow. Am I a frontier worker, even though I live right in the middle of England?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples