Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.8.3-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we had two reasons for asking these questions. First, to obtain some clarification, and second to get things moving in this whole field. Clarification, because we Members of Parliament soon realised that the contributions made by Commissioner Solbes and the representative of the Council did not make it clear why the legal basis has been changed in Article 63(4). It was simply stated, without any justification being given.
Since Tampere, we have taken very seriously the Council's announcement that the legal status of third-country nationals, that is to say citizens who live and work in the EU, who are legally resident here and do not come from one of the 15 Member States, should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals.
Europe's institutions want more clarity and transparency without waiting for the Convention. However, these new proposals are creating more confusion than before, because, if we have to deal with two different legal bases, that is certainly very confusing. It is also unsatisfactory because it rules out codecision by Parliament. What a short-sighted strategy on the part of the Commission! You know that up to now we have always been on your side when it comes to modernisation, to changing and improving things for Europe's employees, Europe's workers. I think it would be not only very short-sighted but also a dangerous strategy to exclude Parliament at this stage. It is of course possible for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark to apply to opt out under Regulation 1408, and that would really be disastrous, because no one in this House could welcome a further social policy opt-out. The result would be a patchwork quilt of a social policy which would certain not confirm and win the trust that employees ought to have in Europe's institutions. So we are all delighted that the United Kingdom has stopped opting out of social policy. Is this an attempt to reintroduce that?
The second reason for our question was of course to get the plans for reform moving. I remember that an undertaking to update this directive was given in Edinburgh back in 1992. Please note – an update. I would like to remind you once again that Regulation 1408 does not involve harmonising social systems, but is about coordinating the framework conditions, as it were, in order to encourage and support our citizens in making use of their scope for mobility in Europe. Every couple of weeks there are fresh appeals from the Council and the Commission to young people, to workers, to the public in general, to take advantage of this freedom of movement. However, I would like to say here that the framework conditions consist of some very complicated and unwieldy legislation. In Germany we would say that is a book with seven seals, a closed book if you like, even for the initiated.
The 12 parameters that we now have before us do not add up to the qualitative improvement that we actually promised ourselves. I naturally agree with the critical comments made by Mrs Lambert and Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, and also with the criticism that you expressed on behalf of the Commission, Mr Solbes.
The other point I should have mentioned was the time frame. We had expected that the Spanish Presidency would have presented a methodical, reasonable and effective proposal by June."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples