Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-31-Speech-4-039"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-31"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Integrated European labour market 1998-19992
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010531.2.4-039"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-31-Speech-4-0402
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the report by Mr Ribeiro e Castro gives a clear and thorough exposition of the Commission document and its shortcomings. Firstly, the rapporteur requires more information on the results of the EURES network. I fully support that, since it definitely remains obscure how the results of EURES relate to the state of affairs in European labour markets. Secondly, the Commission document shows clearly that Member States could make fuller use of the potential of the EURES network, in view of the differences between Member States in the number of vacancies in the network: international recruitment will not be realistic for all vacancies. In the same way the call to encourage all border regions to enter into a EURES partnership has not been supported with arguments based on the need for community support expressed by the regions themselves. The obstacles are not found in the first place between adjacent regions, but concern mobility over greater distances, that is, they are ‘transnational’ rather than ‘cross-border’ in nature. EU enlargement implies that a shift in emphasis from cross-border to transnational mobility will become more likely. My third point concerns the necessary subsidiarity. Both the Commission and the rapporteur raise the point that local familiarity with the network leaves much to be desired. However, local information is the responsibility of the local players. For that reason, reserving a substantial portion of the budget for promotion is undesirable. On the other hand, I can fully support the call for decentralisation. The term of the budget is also a discussion point. The Commission wants a budget extending over several years as this facilitates planning. I have no problems with long-term budgets as such, but I do with the scope and nature of the community package of responsibilities proposed by the Commission. That leads me to prefer an annual establishment of the budget. In conclusion the attention paid by the rapporteur to expansion has my support. After the political decision on the free movement of employees is taken for the candidate countries, the mobility of labour must no longer be restricted by inadequate cooperation in employment provision."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph