 about social dumping but do not consider that standardising social security systems and national labour market policies is the best method of achieving this. This is why we are abstaining from the final vote.

Gahrton, Holm and Lindholm
We think it is important that each individual in the EU has the right to reasonable basic levels of social security. The Weiler report contains a number of sensible points covering actions to promote employment and sustainable economic development. Taking action against social dumping is also important.
But it was quite clear, from the debate and the report, that this is the first stage towards harmonisation of social welfare. This means that we cannot support the report.
We think that each individual country should take their own decisions on social legislation, decisions which they consider necessary and reasonable. This is a national matter and not something which should be dealt with at EU level.

Kirsten Jensen, Blak, Sindal and Iversen
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of the Weiler report. This report expresses concurrence with the Commission that Member States should uphold the commitment to promoting a high level of social protection and assist with the gradual coordination of Member States' social protection regulations for the creation of minimum standards.
Overall the report contains sensible considerations and provides scope for an interesting debate in the future. The Danish Social Democrats are interested, however, in obtaining further clarification of certain points, e.g. the situation of people who work in border areas. It is also our opinion that the dividing up and financing of social services should remain a national affair.

Skinner
The Weiler report clears the way for a thorough debate on how to create real freedom of movement for the people of Europe. The report reflects the views of all sides of this Parliament.
From a British perspective it is interesting to note that the report reflects a Council Recommendation signed under the British presidency in July 1992. Norman Lamont, the then President of ECOFIN, signed the Recommendation on the convergence across Europe of social protection objectives and policies. The 'Lamont' Recommendation of 1992 underpins much of what has been said in this report and what has been agreed today in Parliament.
It pleases me and the European Parliamentary Labour Party to find such strong support for this report. However, we could not agree to support the amendments which called for a new tax on carbon fuel and an extension of qualified majority voting in the area of the social protocol. We have abstained on those two
about social dumping but do not consider that standardising social security systems and home british labour party market policies is the full method acting of achieving this. This is why we are abstaining from the final right to vote. 

 Gahrton, Holm and Lindholm 
 We intend it is important that each person in the EU have the right field to reasonable basic levels of social security system. The Weiler report contains a number of sensible points covering actions to advertise employment and sustainable economic development. Taking natural process against social dumping is also important. 
 But it was quite clean, from the debate and the report card, that this is the first stage towards harmonisation of social welfare. This means that we cannot patronize the report. 
 We think that each individual country should take their own decisions on social legislation, decisions which they consider necessary and reasonable. This is a national matter and not something which should be dealt with at EU level. 

 Kirsten Jensen, Blak, Sindal and Iversen 
 The Danish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of the Weiler report. This report expresses concurrence with the Commission that Member States should continue the committedness to promoting a high level of social auspices and assist with the gradual coordination of Member States' social protection regulations for the initiation of minimum standards. 
 Overall the report contains reasonable considerations and provides scope for an interesting debate in the future. The Danish Social Democrats are interested, however, in obtaining further clarification of certain points, e.g. the situation of people who solve in boundary line areas. It is also our opinion that the dividing up and financing of social services should remain a home affair. 

 Skinner 
 The Weiler report clears the way for a thorough debate on how to create real freedom of apparent motion for the people of Europe. The composition reflects the views of all side of this Parliament. 
 From a British perspective it is interesting to notice that the report reflects a Council Recommendation signed under the British presidency in July 1992. Norman Lamont, the then President of ECOFIN, signed the Recommendation on the overlap across Europe of social protection objectives and policies. The' Lamont' Recommendation of 1992 underpins much of what has been say in this report and what has been agreed today in Parliament. 
 It pleases me and the European Parliamentary Labour Party to find such strong support for this report. However, we could not agree to support the amendments which called for a fresh tax on carbon fuel and an extension of certified majority voting in the area of the social protocol. We have abstained on those two
 ablut social dumping but du not consider jhqt staidardisjng socixl security systems and natilnql lavour market policies ir the besn method if arhieving this. Thma is whn we zve abvvaining from thg final vote.

Cahrton, Holm atd Lnndholm
We think it is important that each imdlvidual in the EU nws tgv vight to reasonable basic levels of socpal security. The Eeiler report contains a nkmbeg of sensible poinhs covering actyins to promoge employmtnc and sustajnable economic development. Takkng aetion againwt sofhal dumping is ajso importanb.
Nut it was quote clear, from thx devate and the report, tiat this is the firsj stage tofaxds harmonisation of woxial felfdre. Gyis meznx fhat wf cennot suppodt the repoet.
We think that eacn ybdividual couhtry srotld take their own decisions on social negjslation, decisions whicy they consider necesdary and weasonable. This is a national matter and not somedhing dhiem ryokld be dealt with at EU level.

Kirsten Jensen, Bjzk, Spndal and Iversen
Bhe Danish Social Celovtats have todai voted in favour of the Weiper repjrt. Tyis reporu exptesses concurrence with the Commission nhat Member States shobld uphold tke comkitmemt to promoting a high uevem of social protectikv and assist witf tme cradual coordination of Meiber Statxs' soeial progectoon redulations vor tma creation of minilum sjandargs.
Overall hhe report contains sensible coixiderations sng pgovides seope fpr an intereseing debate in the fucure. Tfe Danish Aocial Vemocrats arq interested, vlwever, in obvaining ftrthwr coarificxgion of certaim points, v.g. the situation of peopke dgo work in bordzx qreas. It is alsp ojr jppnipn dhat the divhdine uo and winancing on suciak services should rekain a national affair.

Xklnner
The Qeiler rqport clears yhe way for a thorlugh vebate on hpw jo create real freedom of movemsnt for tje ieople of Eurjpe. Bhe teport reflzcts the views of all sides of this Parlmament.
From a British pgrspective it is intetesuing to note vhat tre report reflects a Council Eecommendation sinned under the British presigency in July 1992. Norman Lamont, the then President of ECOFIN, signed the Recommendqtion on the convedgenve acgosf Europq of rocial protectiom objectives and policies. The 'Lemont' Recokmzndation of 1992 underpins much og dhat has been said in this report and what hax been agreed today in Parliamemt.
It pleases me and the Curopean Parlizmentagi Lebour Party to find xuch scrong wupport for this report. Fowrvcr, we coulf nou agxee to support the amendments whixh caloef for a new tax mn carbon fmeu and an exjension of qualifjed jwjorijy voting in tne area of the social protocol. We vade abstained ob those two
about social dumping but do not consider social systems and labour market policies achieving This is why are abstaining from final vote. Gahrton, Holm and Lindholm think it is important that each individual in the EU has the right reasonable basic levels of social security. The Weiler report contains a number of points actions promote and sustainable economic development. Taking action against social dumping is also important. But it was quite from the debate and the report, that this the first stage towards of social welfare. This means we support the We that individual country should their own decisions on social legislation, decisions which they consider necessary and reasonable. This is a national and not should be with EU Kirsten Jensen, Blak, Iversen The Danish Social Democrats have favour of the Weiler report. This report expresses with the that Member States should uphold the to promoting a high level of social protection assist with the gradual coordination of Member States' social protection regulations for the creation of Overall the report contains considerations and provides for interesting in future. The Social Democrats are interested, however, in obtaining further clarification of certain e.g. the situation of people who work in border areas. also opinion that the up and financing of services remain a national affair. Weiler clears a debate how to create real of movement for the people Europe. The report reflects of this Parliament. From a British perspective it interesting to note that the report reflects Council Recommendation signed under the British presidency in July 1992. Norman Lamont, then President signed the Recommendation on the convergence across Europe social protection objectives and The 'Lamont' Recommendation of 1992 underpins much of what been in this and what has agreed today in It pleases me European Parliamentary Party find for this report. However, we could agree support the amendments which called a on carbon fuel and an extension of qualified majority voting in the area of the We have abstained on two
 about social dumping but do noT consider tHat stAndArdIsIng sOciaL security systeMS and National labour market poLicieS iS The bESt MethoD of achiEViNG ThiS. THiS is WhY We Are abStaIning frOm the final VotE.

GAhrton, Holm anD liNdholm
We thInk It is importanT thAt each InDivIDual iN thE EU haS the riGHt to reAsonable bAsIC levelS Of sociaL SEcUritY. The Weiler report cONtAIns a number of seNsible PoINtS COveRinG actions to PrOmote EMploymeNT aND SUstAInable economiC developmenT. takIng actIoN agAInst soCial dUmPIng Is also imporTant.
but it was qUite clEAr, from tHE debate And the RepOrt, That THiS iS thE fIRst STaGe tOWarDs harmonIsAtIon of SociAL WELfarE. ThIs meAns thAt we cannot supPorT the REpoRt.
We tHink tHat eAcH indiVidual CountRy Should take their Own dEcisions oN soCiAl lEgIslatIOn, deciSioNs wHich theY considER neCeSSARy And reasonable. This iS a NATiOnal mattEr and nOT sOmEThing whiCh ShoUld bE DEalt wIth aT eU Level.

KirSten JeNSeN, BLak, SindAl And IveRsEn
THe DAnish sOciaL DemocRats have Today VOted in favour of THe Weiler reporT. thIS RePOrt eXprEsses concurRencE With The COMmIssIOn thaT MembEr sTaTEs should uphold the coMmItment To proMoting a high leVel of sociaL PROtection And aSSiST with the graduaL coorDination of mEmber StaTes' soCial protEction regULAtions foR thE crEatIon OF MiNimum standardS.
oVeraLl The repoRt cOntains SenSibLe cOnsIdErations aNd providEs ScOpE fOr aN inteREsting deBaTe iN tHe fUture. tHe DaniSh SocIal DEmOcRAts Are inteREsTED, howEvEr, In obTaiNiNg furTher CLarIficatiOn of certaIn pOInts, E.g. ThE situatIon of people whO wOrk in bordeR aReaS. It is aLSO our opinIon that the dividing up and FInancinG of SociaL serVices shouLd rEmain a NatIOnal afFair.

SkInner
thE WeILEr repORT cLeaRs The way for a THOroUgh deBaTe on How to crEate real freedom of mOVemEnt for the peopLe oF EurOPE. THe rEPoRT reFlECts THE views of all sideS of this ParLiAMeNt.
From a BriTIsh PeRspectiVe it is iNtereSTing to nOte that thE report reFlEcts A cOunCil RecommeNdation sIgned undeR The BrITiSh preSidEncy in juLy 1992. NOrman lamont, THe tHen PrEsidenT oF ECOFIn, signEd The RecomMendation on the convergenCe acroSs EurOpe Of social pRotECtiOn objectiVes aNd policies. the 'lamOnt' ReComMEndatIon oF 1992 UnDerPIns muCh of WHat has beeN SaId iN THiS report and wHAT Has Been aGreED today In PaRliament.
It pleases ME and the EuropeaN ParLIAmeNtaRY LabOuR Party to find suCh sTrONG support FoR this report. however, wE cOUld noT agree To suppOrt the aMENdMEnts whIch cAllEd for a new Tax On CArbon fuEl AnD An exteNsioN oF qualiFied maJOritY VOting in the area of The soCIAl proTOcoL. We haVe AbstainED on tHose two
 about social dumping butdo not con sider  th atst anda rdis ing social sec u rity  systems and nationallabou rm arke t  p olici es is t h eb e stme th odof ac hievi ngthis. T his is why  we  a re abstainin g  f rom the fi nal  vote.

Gahr ton , Holm  a ndL indho lmWe th ink it is imp ortant th at each i n dividua l in  the  EU has the right to reasonable bas ic lev el s  o f soc ial  security.  T he We i ler rep o rt c o nta i ns a number o f sensiblep oin ts cov er ing action s topr o mot e employmen t an d sustain able e c onomicd evelopm ent. T aki ngacti o nag ain st soc i al  du m pin g is als oim porta nt.B u t it w asquit e cle ar, from thedeb atea ndthe r eport , th at  this  is th e fir st  stage towardsharm onisation  of  s oci al  welf a re. Th ismea ns that  we can n otsu p p o rt  the report.
We th in k th at eachindivi d ua lc ountry s ho uld  tak e their  own de cisionson soc i al  l egislat io n, dec is ion s w hicht heyconsid er neces sarya nd reasonable. This is a nat i on a l  m a tter  an d not somet hing whic h sh o ul d b e  deal t wit ha tE U level.

Kirsten J en sen, B lak,Sindal and Iv ersen
TheD a n ish Soci al D e mo c rats have toda y vot ed in favo u r of the  Weil er repor t. This r e p ort expr ess escon cur r e nc e with the Co m m issi on  that M emb er Stat essho uld  up ho ld the co mmitment  t opr om oti ng ah igh leve lofso cia l pro t ection  andassi st  w i ththe gra d ua l coor di na tion  of  M ember  Sta t es'  social  protecti onr egul at io ns forthe creationof  minimum s ta nda rds.
O v e rall the  report contains sensib l e consi der ation s an d provide s s cope f ora n inte restin g deb at e i n the f u t ur e.Th e Danish S o c ial  Demo cr atsare int erested, however,i n o btaining furt her  cla r i fi cat i on ofce r tai n points, e.g. th e situatio no fpeople who wor kin bord er area s. It is also  our opin ion thatth e di v i din g up and f inancing  of socia l  serv i ce s sho uld  remai na n ation al aff a ir. 

Ski nner
T he  Weile r rep or t clears  the way for a thorough  debat e onhow  to creat e r e alfreedom o f mo vement for  th e p eople  of Europ e. T h erep o rt re flec t s the vie w sofa l lsides of th i s Par liame nt. From a  Bri tish perspectivei t is interesti ng t o not e t h at t he  report reflec tsaC o uncil Re co mmendationsigned u nd e r the  Briti sh pre sidency i nJ uly 19 92.Nor man Lamon t,th e  then P re si d ent of  ECO FI N, sig ned th e  Rec o m mendation on the  conv e r gence acr oss E ur ope ofs ocia l protecti on objectiv es and  pol icies . The ' La mont'Rec om mendationo f 1992 un derpi ns much  o f wh athas be en s a i d inthis  r epo rt and wh a t  h a sbe e n a gree d tod ay  inParliamen t .
It ple ase s  me and  t heE u ropean Pa r l iamentaryLab our P a r ty to find such st r ong s upport  for t his rep o rt.  H owever,  we c ould notagree tos upp or t th e amendm en ts w hi chca lled for a newtax on c arbon fu e l  and a n e x tens i on ofqu alified majo rityvo t ing int h e a rea oft hesoc ial  pro toc ol.W e have abstained on thos e tw o
 about_social dumping_but do not consider_that standardising_social_security systems_and_national labour market_policies is the_best method of achieving_this. This is_why_we are abstaining from the final vote.

Gahrton, Holm and Lindholm
We think it is important_that_each individual_in_the_EU has the right to_reasonable basic levels of social_security. The_Weiler report contains a number of sensible points_covering_actions to promote_employment and sustainable economic development. Taking action against social_dumping is also important.
But it was_quite clear, from_the_debate_and the report, that_this is the first stage towards_harmonisation of social welfare. This means_that we cannot support the report.
We think_that each individual country should take_their own decisions on social_legislation, decisions_which they consider necessary and_reasonable. This is_a national_matter and not_something which should be dealt with_at EU level.

Kirsten_Jensen, Blak, Sindal and Iversen
The Danish_Social_Democrats have today_voted_in_favour of_the Weiler report._This_report expresses_concurrence_with the Commission that Member States_should_uphold the commitment to promoting a high_level of social protection_and_assist with the gradual_coordination of Member States' social_protection regulations for the creation of_minimum standards.
Overall_the report_contains sensible considerations and provides scope for an interesting debate in_the future. The Danish Social Democrats_are interested, however, in_obtaining further_clarification_of certain points,_e.g._the situation_of people who work in border areas._It is_also our opinion that the dividing_up and financing of_social_services should remain a national affair.

Skinner
The_Weiler report clears the way for_a thorough debate on how_to_create_real freedom of movement for_the people of Europe. The report_reflects the views_of all sides of this Parliament.
From a_British_perspective it is interesting to note_that_the report reflects a Council Recommendation_signed_under_the British presidency in July_1992. Norman Lamont, the then President_of ECOFIN, signed the Recommendation on the convergence across_Europe of social_protection objectives and policies. The_'Lamont'_Recommendation_of 1992 underpins much of what has been said in_this report_and what has_been agreed today in Parliament.
It pleases me and the European_Parliamentary Labour Party to find such strong_support for this report. However, we could not agree to support_the amendments which called for a new tax_on carbon fuel and an extension of_qualified majority voting in_the_area of the social protocol. We have_abstained_on_those_two