Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061115.11.3-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
If the new version of the Bolkestein Directive had not already suffered from serious shortcomings, particularly that of not being fundamentally different from its predecessor, one reason alone would have prompted us to reject it: the suspicious consensus between the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and, what is more, their adoption of the compromise drafted at the Council.
The real revolution would have consisted, among other things, in explicitly stating the priority for a Member State to apply its national law, and particularly its national labour law and its national social, criminal and fiscal laws, in its territory. That is to say the country of destination principle, as opposed to the country of origin principle. This would not have prevented service providers from another Member State from being able to offer services in another country; this would have simply meant there being fair competition with national operators. The revolution would have consisted in agreeing to the Member States’ being able to introduce conditions regarding access to certain activities, such as the situation of the labour market, or reasons justifying territorial planning. They do not have this possibility.
After competition with the rest of the world and competition among businesses, Europe is now establishing competition among European workers, whether self-employed or salaried, and thus competition among social systems. It is heading for disaster."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples