Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-14-Speech-1-043-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-02-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Implementation of the Services Directive (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110214.13.1-043-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-02-14-Speech-1-044-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Pascal Canfin2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-15--2011-07-31)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2012-05-15)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2012-05-15)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Europe Écologie (2009-07-14--2012-05-15)3 member; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2012-05-15)3 substitute; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Gebhardt, in 2006, my group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, voted against the Services Directive, and today, we consider the report assessing the implementation of this Services Directive, previously known as the Bolkestein Directive, to be equally unsatisfactory. The Verts/ALE Group will therefore vote against this report. I should like to make it clear, Mrs Gebhardt, that you did everything you could to achieve the best possible compromises. However, I believe that some red lines have unfortunately been crossed in this report, which means that we cannot vote in favour of it. I should also like to state that you took great care to point out that we should not confuse the various responsibilities, and I certainly do not wish to confuse the responsibilities of the Member States with those of the European Union, either. If France, for example, transposed the Services Directive and chose to include day nurseries in it, when almost all of the other countries chose to do the opposite, it is clearly the responsibility of the French Government and not of the European Union. Therefore, the Verts/ALE Group is certainly not voting against this report in order to criticise the way in which the directive has been transposed in France. It is doing so on account of two key points. The first is that we asked time and again, during the discussions, for the Member States to assess the impact that the initial transposition of the Services Directive had on the quality of jobs and services. Unfortunately, that assessment of the impact on job and service quality could not be integrated into the report. We also called for an assessment of the cost impact for public authorities. Every time we try to take steps to regulate the financial markets, for example, we are told that it will cost a fortune. Here, we have a very high cost for public authorities at a time when budgets are tight, and no one wants to assess it in order to weigh up the pros and cons of the Services Directive. My final point is in the form of a question to Commissioner Barnier. Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain an assurance in this report that the European Commission will finally take note of Article 14 of the Treaty of Lisbon and present a proposal for a directive on public services. Can you tell us when the Commission will finally face up to its responsibilities on this point?"@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph