Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.28.2-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us imagine the follow-up to our work. It is time we reminded ourselves that we are in a codecision procedure here. Cleverly, our colleague, Mr Harbour, was able to abandon the idea of a parliamentary victory, which was the likely outcome but which led straight to the slow agony of drafting a crucial text on services. His tour of the European capital cities confirmed to him what we already know. The compromise drafted with Mrs Gebhardt – to whom I should like to pay tribute - is the only one possible within the Council and between Parliament and the Council. There is no qualified majority vote within the Council for the kind of internal market that some people want. To persist in wanting this kind of market would be a Pyrrhic victory.
What, moreover, is chiefly apparent is that the difference between us has become a difference between the East and the West. On the basis of this observation, it is the logic of enlargement that is today called into question. Let us not forget that the failure of the Services Directive would be added to a list that includes the collapse of the Constitution, the concerns about the financial perspective and the doubts about the Lisbon Agenda.
We must now participate in a reconciliation strategy in order to keep the Community ambition alive. I identified a real problem in the discrimination felt by the new Member States when faced with the restrictions imposed on the free movement of workers. I want helpfully to say to those countries that it is not by rejecting the compromise and thus, in the long run, the Services Directive or by bringing into question the Posting of Workers Directive that they will overcome this discrimination – quite the opposite. That was the thinking behind the work that we, in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, carried out under the aegis of Mrs Van Lancker when we deleted Articles 24 and 25 from the initial text.
From now on, we must solemnly call for the moratorium to be abandoned and for all the restrictions on the free movement of workers from the new Member States to be lifted. It would also be worthwhile linking these issues during the Council debate on the Services Directive. However, a study of the text has also demonstrated the many shortcomings in the Community’s legal arsenal. Some Members have voiced legitimate fears, and these fears must be dealt with. Let us take stock of the undeniable progress constituted by this text, because our job as legislator has only just begun."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples