Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.3.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"model"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples