Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-01-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070201.3.4-015"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@cs1
"Fru formand! Denne betænkning er selvmodsigende. Regeringerne kan ikke mikroforvalte virksomhederne. Siden hvornår har EU iværksat noget som helst, der forbedrer samhandelen, minimerer udgifterne, begrænser bureaukratiet, skaber nye arbejdspladser og bidrager til fri konkurrence? Har den nogensinde? De fleste regeringer kan kun håbe på at bidrage til den økonomiske vækst ved at fjerne dyngerne af forhindringer og skabe frihed for virksomhederne. Regeringerne burde satse på at give folk muligheder og lade deres initiativ trives. Derefter bør de holde sig i baggrunden.
Det Forenede Kongerige har et kæmpestort, permanent og voksende underskud over for EU. Er der nogen her, der i fuldt alvor forestiller sig, at EU ved at tage kontrollen over virksomhedslovgivningen vedrørende SMV'er vil ændre på eller forbedre den situation? Forestiller De Dem virkelig, at det er muligt, især fordi disse forslag er baseret på den tyske og franske opfattelse af arbejdsmarkedet?
Jeg støtter det, hr. Bloom netop sagde. Hvor mange her har nogensinde startet en virksomhed for egen regning og risiko? Skabt arbejdspladser? Grundlagt den selv og drevet den i lad os sige 20 år? Hvor mange af Dem har gjort det? Hvor mange i udvalget har gjort det? Hvor mange af Dem ved, hvad det kræver at starte ny virksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige? Nu skal jeg fortælle dem det. Mindre end 100 pund, 10 minutter i telefonen, og så kan man drive virksomhed overalt. Prøv at sammenligne det med disse forslag. Vi har århundreder med virksomhedslovgivning bag os i Det Forenede Kongerige, mange tak, og det fungerer bare fint. Vi har også SMV'er, der handler over hele verden, og de klarer sig fint. De fleste af deres mareridt skyldes EU's tidligere fejlagtige forsøg på at "hjælpe" med at handle med kontinentet. Størstedelen af den "hjælp" griber ind i deres aktiviteter, og tanken om mere "hjælp" vil derfor blive mødt med rædsel.
I årenes løb har vi set mesterværker af utilsigtede konsekvenser her fra stedet. Der er arbejdstidsdirektivet, som var det endelige bevis for en af mine forretningsforbindelser på, at EU klinisk set er vanvittigt. Der er forsøgene på at skabe lige muligheder for alle, den diametrale modsætning til velstand og jobskabelse, som er helt afhængig af at finde forskelle, og nu har vi godkendelsen af autoriserede økonomiske aktører, som er en kolossal fordel for dem, der falder ind under dækningsområdet, og undergraver alle andre med ekstra udgifter og bureaukrati. Selv den socialistiske regering i Det Forenede Kongerige har regnet ud, at dette forslag er noget dyrt og farligt nonsens, der hører til i papirkurven."@da2
".
Frau Präsidentin! Dieser Bericht stellt einen Widerspruch in sich dar. Der Staat kann doch die Angelegenheiten der Unternehmen nicht bis ins kleinste Detail regeln. Seit wann hat die Europäische Union irgend etwas auf den Weg gebracht, das den Handel verbessert, Kosten gering hält, Bürokratie abbaut, neuen Wohlstand hervorbringt, neue Arbeitsplätze schafft, den Betrieb erleichtert? Wann denn? Den meisten Regierungen bleibt nur die Hoffnung, Wirtschaftwachstum zu fördern, indem sie den Stapel an Hindernissen aus dem Weg räumen und ein unternehmensfreundliches Umfeld schaffen. Aufgabe der Regierung sollte es sein, dafür zu sorgen, dass Menschen mit ihrer Initiative Erfolg haben. Danach sollte sie in den Hintergrund treten.
Das Vereinigte Königreich hat ein gewaltiges, dauerhaftes und wachsendes Defizit bei der EU. Ist irgendjemand hier ernsthaft der Auffassung, dass die Europäische Union diese Situation ändert oder verbessert, wenn sie die Kontrolle über das Gesellschaftsrecht für KMU übernimmt? Halten Sie das wirklich für möglich, besonders da diese Vorschläge auf den deutschen und französischen Vorstellungen eines sozialen Marktes basieren?
Ich pflichte dem bei, was Herr Bloom gerade gesagt hat. Wie viele von Ihnen hier haben jemals ein neues Unternehmen auf eigenes Risiko gegründet? Arbeitsplätze geschaffen? Es selbst finanziert und, sagen wir, zwanzig Jahre lang erfolgreich geführt? Wie viele von Ihnen haben das getan? Wie viele Leute in diesem Ausschuss haben das getan? Wer von Ihnen weiß, was erforderlich ist, um im Vereinigten Königreich ein Unternehmen zu gründen? Nun, ich werde es Ihnen sagen: Weniger als hundert Pfund, zehn Minuten am Telefon, und man kann überall Geschäfte machen. Vergleichen Sie dies einmal mit diesen Vorschlägen. Wir haben seit Jahrhunderten ein Gesellschaftsrecht im Vereinigten Königreich, vielen Dank. Und es funktioniert hervorragend. Außerdem haben wir KMU, die weltweit Handel treiben, und es geht ihnen hervorragend. Die meisten ihrer Albträume sind auf bisherige irrige Versuche der EU zurückzuführen, ihnen beim Handel auf dem Kontinent zu „helfen“. Ein Großteil dieser „Hilfe“ steht ihren Aktivitäten lediglich im Wege, und der Gedanke an noch mehr „Hilfe“ wird Entsetzen auslösen.
Im Laufe der Jahre hat dieses Haus Meisterleistungen mit unvorhergesehenen Folgen vollbracht. Da ist die Arbeitszeitrichtlinie, die einen mit mir befreundeten Unternehmer endgültig davon überzeugt hat, dass die EU klinisch verrückt ist. Da ist das Streben nach gleichen Wettbewerbsbedingungen, das genaue Gegenteil zur Schaffung von Wohlstand und Beschäftigung, wo es doch genau darauf ankommt, Unterschiede zu finden. Und jetzt gibt es die zugelassenen Wirtschaftsbeteiligten, was den Berechtigten gewaltige Vorteile und allen anderen zusätzliche Kosten und Bürokratie bringt. Sogar die sozialistische britische Regierung hat begriffen, dass dieser Vorschlag kostspielig und gefährlicher Unsinn ist und in den Papierkorb gehört."@de9
"Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αυτή η έκθεση είναι αντιφατική. Οι κυβερνήσεις δεν μπορούν να μικροδιοικούν τις επιχειρήσεις. Πότε ξεκίνησε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση κάτι που να βελτιώνει το εμπόριο, να ελαχιστοποιεί τις δαπάνες, να περιορίζει τη γραφειοκρατία, να παράγει νέο πλούτο, να δημιουργεί νέες θέσεις εργασίας ή να ελευθερώνει τις επιχειρήσεις; Πότε σε ολόκληρη την ύπαρξή της; Οι περισσότερες κυβερνήσεις μπορούν να ελπίζουν ότι θα συμβάλουν στην οικονομική ανάπτυξη μόνο μέσω της άρσης των εμποδίων και της δημιουργίας περιβάλλοντος χωρίς επιχειρήσεις. Η κυβέρνηση θα έπρεπε να δίνει τη δυνατότητα στους ανθρώπους και στις πρωτοβουλίες τους να ακμάζουν. Μετά από αυτό θα έπρεπε να στέκεται στην άκρη.
Το ΗΒ έχει ένα τεράστιο, μόνιμο και αυξανόμενο έλλειμμα με την ΕΕ. Φαντάζεται κανείς από εσάς εδώ σοβαρά ότι με την ανάληψη του ελέγχου του εταιρικού δικαίου που αφορά τις ΜΜΕ, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα αλλάξει ή θα βελτιώσει αυτήν την κατάσταση; Πιστεύετε πραγματικά ότι είναι αυτό δυνατόν, ειδικά όταν αυτές οι προτάσεις βασίζονται σε γερμανικές και γαλλικές ιδέες για μια κοινωνική αγορά;
Υποστηρίζω όσα μόλις είπε ο κ. Bloom. Πόσοι από εσάς εδώ ξεκινήσατε μια νέα επιχείρηση με δικό σας ρίσκο; Δημιουργήσατε θέσεις εργασίας; Τη χρηματοδοτήσατε μόνοι σας και τη λειτουργήσατε με επιτυχία επί 20 χρόνια, ας πούμε; Πόσοι από εσάς το κάνατε αυτό; Πόσοι σε αυτήν την επιτροπή το έχουν κάνει αυτό; Πόσοι γνωρίζετε τι χρειάζεται για να ξεκινήσει κανείς μια νέα επιχείρηση στο ΗΒ; Θα σας πω εγώ λοιπόν. Με λιγότερες από εκατό στερλίνες και με δέκα λεπτά στο τηλέφωνο μπορείς να ανοίξεις επιχείρηση οπουδήποτε. Συγκρίνετε αυτήν τη διαδικασία με αυτές εδώ τις προτάσεις. Έχουμε αιώνες εταιρικού δικαίου στο ΗΒ, ευχαριστούμε πολύ. Και λειτουργεί αποτελεσματικά. Έχουμε επίσης ΜΜΕ που εμπορεύονται σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο και τα καταφέρνουν μια χαρά. Οι περισσότεροι εφιάλτες τους προέρχονται από παλιές άστοχες προσπάθειες της ΕΕ να «βοηθήσει» με το εμπόριο στην ηπειρωτική Ευρώπη. Στο μεγαλύτερο μέρος της αυτή η «βοήθεια» απλώς παρεμβαίνει στις δραστηριότητές τους και η ιδέα της ακόμα περισσότερης «βοήθειας» θα αντιμετωπιστεί με τρόμο.
Κατά τη διάρκεια των ετών έχουμε δει αριστουργήματα ακούσιων συνεπειών από αυτή τη θέση. Υπάρχει η οδηγία για τον χρόνο εργασίας, η οποία απέδειξε τελικά σε έναν επιχειρηματία φίλο μου ότι η ΕΕ ήταν κλινικά παράφρων. Υπάρχει η ώθηση για ένα ισότιμο πλαίσιο, η ίδια η αντίθεση του πλούτου και της δημιουργίας θέσεων απασχόλησης, η οποία εξαρτάται απόλυτα από την εξεύρεση διαφορών. Και τώρα έχουμε την αδειοδότηση των εξουσιοδοτημένων οικονομικών φορέων, η οποία ωφελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό όσους πληρούν τις προϋποθέσεις και υπονομεύει όλους τους άλλους με επιπλέον δαπάνες και γραφειοκρατία. Ακόμα και η σοσιαλιστική βρετανική κυβέρνηση κατάλαβε ότι αυτή η πρόταση αποτελεί δαπανηρή και επικίνδυνη ανοησία και η θέση της βρίσκεται στον κάλαθο των αχρήστων."@el10
".
Señora Presidenta, este informe es contradictorio. Los Gobiernos no pueden microgestionar empresas. ¿Desde cuándo la Unión Europea a hecho algo que haya mejorado el comercio, minimizado los costes, recortado la burocracia, generado nueva riqueza, creado nuevos empleos y liberado a las empresas? ¿Cuándo? La mayoría de Gobiernos solo pueden contribuir al crecimiento económico despejando todos los obstáculos y creando un entorno de libre empresa. Gobernar debería consistir en permitir que las personas y sus iniciativas prosperen. Después, el Gobierno debería mantenerse al margen.
El Reino Unido tiene un déficit enorme, permanente y creciente con la UE. ¿De verdad alguien cree que por asumir el control del Derecho de sociedades relativo a las PYME la Unión Europea cambiará o mejorará esa situación? ¿De verdad creen que esto es posible, teniendo en cuenta que esas propuestas están basadas en las ideas alemanas y francesas sobre un mercado social?
Apoyo lo que acaba de decir el señor Bloom. ¿Cuántos de ustedes han puesto alguna vez en marcha una nueva empresa por su cuenta y riesgo? ¿Cuántos han creado empleo? ¿O cuántos han financiando y gestionado una empresa durante, digamos, 20 años? ¿Cuántos de ustedes han hecho eso? ¿Cuántas personas de esa comisión lo han hecho? ¿Cuántos de ustedes saben lo que cuesta poner en marcha una nueva empresa en el Reino Unido? Bien, yo se lo diré. Con menos de cien libras y diez minutos al teléfono, uno puede hacer negocios en cualquier parte. Comparemos esto con las propuestas. En el Reino Unido tenemos siglos de Derecho de sociedades, muchas gracias. Y funciona bien. También tenemos PYME que operan en todo el mundo y les va bien. La mayoría de sus pesadillas vienen de antiguos intentos desencaminados por parte de la UE de «ayudar» con el comercio en el Continente. La mayor parte de esa «ayuda» interfiere con sus actividades, y la idea de más «ayuda» será acogida con horror.
Durante años, en este lugar se han creado obras maestras de consecuencias no intencionadas. Está la Directiva sobre la ordenación del tiempo de trabajo que, por fin, ha demostrado a un socio mío que la UE está clínicamente loca. Se pretende que haya igualdad de condiciones, que es la antítesis de la riqueza y la creación de empleo, que depende totalmente de encontrar las diferencias. Y ahora tenemos la concesión de licencias a operadores económicos autorizados, que beneficia a los que tienen derecho a ellas y perjudica a todos los demás con costes y burocracia adicionales. Incluso el Gobierno socialista británico ha entendido que esta propuesta es un disparate caro y peligroso que debe acabar en el cubo de la basura."@es21
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, tämä mietintö on paradoksaalinen. Hallitukset eivät voi toimia yritysjohdon tasolla. Milloin Euroopan unioni on tehnyt aloitteita, joilla edistettäisiin kauppaa, pienennettäisiin kustannuksia, vähennettäisiin byrokratiaa, luotaisiin uudenlaista vaurautta, perustettaisiin uusia työpaikkoja ja helpotettaisiin yritysten toimintaa? Todellakin, milloin jos koskaan? Useimmat hallitukset pyrkivät tukemaan talouskasvua yksinkertaisesti poistamalla esteitä ja luomalla yrittämistä suosivan ympäristön. Hallitusten pitäisi tarjota ihmisille mahdollisuuksia ja edistää aloitteellisuutta. Sen jälkeen niiden pitäisi vetäytyä syrjään.
Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan valtava ja jatkuva luottamuspula EU:ta kohtaan vain kasvaa. Uskooko täällä joku vakavissaan, että EU voisi muuttaa tai parantaa tätä tilannetta ottamalla pk-yrityksiin sovellettavan yhtiöoikeuden hallintaansa? Kuvitteletteko sen todella olevan mahdollista, etenkin kun nämä ehdotukset perustuvat saksalaisten ja ranskalaisten ajatuksiin sosiaalisesta markkinataloudesta?
Olen samaa mieltä siitä, mitä jäsen Bloom juuri totesi. Kuinka moni teistä on koskaan ottanut uuden yrityksen perustamiseen liittyvän riskin, luonut työpaikkoja, rahoittanut tämän kaiken itse ja johtanut yritystä itse menestyksekkäästi – sanotaan vaikka kahdenkymmenen vuoden ajan? Kuinka moni teistä on tehnyt niin? Kuinka moni kyseisessä valiokunnassa on tehnyt niin? Kuinka moni teistä tietää, mitä uuden yrityksen perustaminen Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa edellyttää? Minäpä kerron. Liiketoiminnan harjoittamiseksi missä tahansa tarvitaan alle sata puntaa ja puhelinsoitto. Verratkaa tätä näihin ehdotuksiin. Meillä on ollut Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa yrityslainsäädäntöä jo vuosisatojen ajan, kiitos siitä. Se toimii vallan hyvin. Meillä on myös pk-yrityksiä, jotka käyvät kauppaa maailmanlaajuisesti ja menestyvät hienosti. Useimmat niiden painajaisista liittyvät EU:n aiempiin epäonnistuneisiin yrityksiin "helpottaa" kaupankäyntiä Manner-Euroopan kanssa. Suurin osa tästä "avusta" haittaa niiden toimintaa, ja ajatukseen "lisäavun" saamisesta suhtaudutaan kauhulla.
Olemme vuosien mittaan saaneet seurata täältä käsin tahattomien seurauksien helmiä. Yksi niistä on työaikadirektiivi, joka osoitti loppujen lopuksi eräälle liikekumppanilleni EU:n olevan kliinisesti mielenvikainen. EU pyrkii luomaan yhtäläiset kilpailumahdollisuudet, mikä estää sitä luomasta vaurautta ja työpaikkoja, sillä niiden luominen riippuu puolestaan täysin erojen löytämisestä. Nyt olemme saaneet käyttöön valtuutettujen taloudellisten toimijoiden lupajärjestelmän, josta on selkeää etua valtuutuksen saajille ja joka vaikeuttaa muiden toimintaa ylimääräisten kulujen ja byrokratian vuoksi. Jopa Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan sosialistihallitus on tajunnut, että tämä vaarallista hölynpölyä oleva ehdotus käy kalliiksi ja joutaa roskakoriin."@fi7
".
Madame la Présidente, ce rapport constitue une contradiction flagrante. Les gouvernements ne peuvent pas faire de la micro-gestion d’entreprise. Quand l’Union européenne a-t-elle pour la dernière fois lancé la moindre initiative qui améliore les échanges, réduise les coûts, diminue la bureaucratie, génère de la prospérité, crée de nouveaux emplois, libère l’entreprise? Quand? La plupart des gouvernements ne peuvent espérer contribuer à la croissance économique qu’en supprimant les entraves et en créant un environnement de libre entreprise. Les gouvernements doivent avoir pour vocation de permettre aux personnes et à leurs initiatives de prospérer. Après quoi ils doivent se tenir bien à l’écart.
Le Royaume-Uni creuse un écart considérable, permanent et croissant avec l’Union européenne. Quelqu’un parmi nous imagine-t-il sérieusement qu’en prenant le contrôle du droit des sociétés relatif aux PME, l’Union européenne changera ou améliorera cette situation? Pensez-vous vraiment que cela soit possible, d’autant plus que ces propositions se basent sur des principes de marché social allemands et français?
J’approuve les propos que vient de tenir M. Bloom. Lequel d’entre vous a déjà lancé une affaire à ses propres risques? Créé des emplois? Financé pour son compte et géré avec succès cette affaire pendant, disons, 20 ans? Combien êtes-vous à l’avoir fait? Combien sont-ils dans cette commission à l’avoir fait? Combien d’entre vous savent ce qu’il faut pour lancer une entreprise au Royaume-Uni? Je vais vous le dire. Moins de cent livres, dix minutes au téléphone et vous pouvez faire des affaires n’importe où. Faites la comparaison avec ces propositions. Le Royaume-Uni compte plusieurs siècles de droit des sociétés à son actif, merci bien. Et le système fonctionne parfaitement. Nous avons également des PME qui commercent partout dans le monde et se débrouillent très bien. La plupart de leurs cauchemars viennent des tentatives mal avisées mises en place autrefois par l’Union afin «d’aider» le commerce sur le continent. La majeure partie de cette «aide» interfère tout simplement avec leurs activités, et l’idée d’une «aide» accrue sera saluée avec effroi.
Au fil des ans, nous avons vu cette Assemblée produire des chefs-d’œuvre d’humour involontaire. La directive sur le temps de travail a finalement prouvé à l’un de mes amis entrepreneurs que l’UE était médicalement aliénée. Citons encore la volonté de mettre en place des conditions identiques, antithèse même de la richesse et de la création d’emplois, qui dépend entièrement de la mise en valeur des différences. Et voici maintenant l’octroi de licences aux opérateurs économiques agréés, une mesure qui s’avère particulièrement bénéfique aux responsables du système et empêtre les autres dans des surcoûts et de la bureaucratie. Le gouvernement socialiste britannique lui-même a compris que cette proposition constituait un coûteux et dangereux non-sens et qu’il fallait s’en débarrasser."@fr8
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@hu11
"Signora Presidente, questa relazione è una contraddizione in termini. I governi non possono microgestire le imprese. Da quando in qua l’Unione europea avvia iniziative che migliorano il commercio, riducono i costi, diminuiscono la burocrazia, generano nuova ricchezza, creano occupazione e incentivano l’imprenditorialità? Quando mai lo ha fatto? La maggior parte dei governi può sperare di contribuire alla crescita economica solo eliminando gli ostacoli e creando un ambiente di libera iniziativa. I governi dovrebbero favorire lo sviluppo individuale e imprenditoriale e poi fare un passo indietro.
Il Regno Unito ha un
enorme, permanente e in costante aumento con l’Unione europea. Qualcuno dei presenti crede davvero che, controllando il diritto societario che disciplina le attività delle PMI, l’Unione europea cambierà o modificherà la situazione? Pensate davvero che ciò sia possibile, soprattutto se si considera che queste proposte si basano sul concetto tedesco e francese di mercato sociale?
Condivido le affermazioni appena formulate dall’onorevole Bloom. Quanti di voi hanno avviato una nuova impresa a proprio rischio, creando posti di lavoro, finanziandola di tasca propria e gestendola efficacemente per, diciamo, vent’anni? Quanti di voi lo hanno fatto? Quanti membri della commissione in questione lo hanno fatto? Quanti di voi sanno che cosa occorre per avviare una nuova impresa nel Regno Unito? D’accordo, ve lo dirò io. Con meno di cento sterline e una decina di minuti al telefono, potete svolgere la vostra attività ovunque. Confrontate questa situazione con le vostre proposte. Nel Regno Unito abbiamo secoli di diritto societario alle spalle, grazie molte. E funziona alla perfezione. Abbiamo anche piccole e medie imprese che conducono attività commerciali in tutto il mondo e anch’esse se la cavano egregiamente. La maggior parte dei loro incubi è dovuta agli incauti tentativi passati dell’UE, che voleva “aiutarle” con il commercio sul Continente. Buona parte di tale “aiuto” interferisce semplicemente con le loro attività e l’idea di ricevere un ulteriore “aiuto” verrà accolta con orrore.
Nel corso degli anni l’UE è stata artefice di veri e propri capolavori in fatto di conseguenze indesiderate. Potrei citare la direttiva sull’orario di lavoro, che ha finalmente dimostrato a un’impresa di mia conoscenza la follia patologica dell’Unione europea, per poi passare all’accento posto sulla parità di condizioni, che è l’antitesi stessa della ricchezza e della creazione di posti di lavoro, le quali dipendono in tutto e per tutto dall’esistenza di differenze. Ora è la volta della concessione di licenze a operatori economici autorizzati, che avvantaggia enormemente chi possiede i requisiti adatti e pregiudica tutti gli altri con un carico aggiuntivo di costi e burocrazia. Anche il governo socialista britannico ha capito che questa proposta è una costosa e pericolosa assurdità e il suo posto è nella pattumiera."@it12
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@lt14
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@mt15
"Mevrouw de Voorzitter, dit verslag is een vat vol tegenstrijdigheden. Overheden kunnen het bedrijfsleven niet micro-managen. Heeft de Europese Unie ook maar ooit iets in gang gezet dat geleid heeft tot een betere handel, minder kosten, minder bureaucratie, nieuwe welvaartbronnen, meer werkgelegenheid en meer ondernemingsvrijheid? Is daar ooit sprake van geweest? De meeste overheden hopen dat ze een bijdrage aan de economische groei kunnen leveren door de talloze obstakels te verwijderen en een bedrijfsvriendelijke omgeving te creëren. Regeren zou moeten inhouden dat mogelijkheden voor mensen worden geschapen om zichzelf te ontwikkelen en initiatieven te ontplooien. Zodra dat is gebeurd, dient de overheid een flinke stap terug te doen.
Het Verenigd Koninkrijk heeft een enorm, permanent en groeiend tekort bij de EU. Is er iemand hier serieus van mening dat de Europese Unie deze situatie kan veranderen of verbeteren door grip proberen te krijgen op het vennootschapsrecht dat op KMO’s van toepassing is? Is er iemand die denkt dat dit echt tot de mogelijkheden behoort, met name gezien het feit dat deze voorstellen gebaseerd zijn op de Duitse en Franse opvattingen over een sociale markt?
Ik sluit mij aan bij wat de heer Bloom zojuist heeft gezegd. Wie van u heeft er ooit voor eigen risico een nieuw bedrijf opgericht? Banen gecreëerd? Zelf voor de financiering gezorgd en er succesvol leiding aan gegeven voor een periode van bijvoorbeeld twintig jaar? Hoevelen van u hebben dat ooit gedaan? Hoeveel leden van de Commissie juridische zaken hebben dat ooit gedaan? Wie van u weet wat er voor nodig is om in het Verenigd Koninkrijk een bedrijf op te starten? Dat zal ik u vertellen. Met minder dan honderd pond en na tien minuten aan de telefoon kunt u overal in het Verenigd Koninkrijk zaken doen. Vergelijk dat eens met deze voorstellen. Op het gebied van het vennootschapsrecht kent het Verenigd Koninkrijk een eeuwenoude traditie; het is maar dat u het weet. En dat vennootschapsrecht functioneert uitstekend. Wij beschikken ook over KMO’s die overal ter wereld zaken doen en dat doen ze goed ook. Het merendeel van hun nachtmerries wordt veroorzaakt door eerdere misplaatste pogingen van de EU om hen te “helpen” bij het zakendoen op het vasteland. De bulk van die “hulp” heeft alleen maar een verstorend effect op hun bedrijfsactiviteiten en het idee dat er nog meer “hulp” in de pijplijn zit, zal met afgrijzen worden ontvangen.
In de loop der jaren zijn wij getuige geweest van meesterwerken van onbedoelde gevolgen dankzij initiatieven vanuit deze plek. Neem als voorbeeld alleen maar eens de arbeidstijdenrichtlijn; deze richtlijn heeft een zakenvriend van mij er definitief van overtuigd dat de EU klinisch krankzinnig is. Dan is er ook nog het streven naar gelijke mededingingsomstandigheden, het zogeheten “level playing field”. Dat staat toch helemaal haaks op het creëren van welvaart en werkgelegenheid, dat immers valt en staat met de mogelijkheid voor bedrijven om zich te kunnen onderscheiden. En dan is er nu de vergunning voor “toegelaten ondernemers” waarvan iedereen die voor die kwalificatie in aanmerking komt, enorm veel profijt van kan trekken, maar waardoor alle overige ondernemers opgezadeld worden met extra kosten en nog meer bureaucratie. Zelfs de Britse socialistische regering heeft inmiddels geconstateerd dat het om een duur, onzinnig en gevaarlijk voorstel gaat dat maar op één plaats thuishoort: in de prullenbak."@nl3
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@pl16
"Senhora Presidente, o presente relatório contradiz-se a si próprio. Os governos não se podem encarregar da microgestão das empresas. Desde quando é que a União Europeia introduziu o que quer que seja que tenha contribuído para melhorar o comércio, minimizar os custos, reduzir a burocracia, gerar nova riqueza, criar novos postos de trabalho, desencadear a actividade empresarial? Desde quando? A maior parte dos governos que esperam contribuir para o crescimento económico poderão, quando muito, eliminar obstáculos e criar um clima favorável às empresas. Governar deveria equivaler a dar às pessoas e à sua capacidade de iniciativa a possibilidade de vingarem. Feito isso, o governo deveria manter-se à distância.
O Reino Unido tem um enorme, permanente e crescente défice com a UE. Será que algum dos presentes crê sinceramente que, adquirindo o controlo sobre a lei das sociedades no que respeita às PME, a União Europeia conseguirá mudar ou melhorar essa situação? Acreditam mesmo que isso seja possível, sobretudo atendendo a que estas propostas se baseiam nas ideias alemãs e francesas do que deve ser um mercado social?
Faço minhas as palavras de há pouco do senhor deputado Bloom. Quantos de vós, aqui presentes, já alguma vez criaram uma nova empresa por vossa conta e risco? Quantos criaram postos de trabalho? Quantos a financiaram do seu bolso e a geriram com êxito durante, digamos, vinte anos? Quantos de vós o fizeram? E de entre a Comissão dos Assuntos Jurídicos, quantos o fizeram? Quantos dos presentes sabem o que é preciso para começar uma nova empresa no Reino Unido? Ora bem, apenas isto: menos de cem libras, dez minutos ao telefone, e poderá dar-se início à actividade em qualquer ponto do país. Comparem isso com estas propostas. Muito obrigado, mas no Reino Unido temos séculos de experiência em matéria de lei das sociedades, e as coisas funcionam bem. Também temos PME a operar em todo o mundo, e são empresas bem sucedidas. Se têm problemas, estes prendem-se, na sua maioria, com tentativas inadequadas da UE, no passado, para "ajudar" ao seu negócio no continente. A maior parte dessas "ajudas" mais não faz do que interferir com a actividade destas empresas, pelo que a ideia de ainda mais "ajuda" será acolhida com aversão.
Ao longo dos anos, assistimos a verdadeiras obras-primas de consequências indesejadas criadas nesta Câmara. Estou a pensar na Directiva relativa ao tempo de trabalho, que levou um empresário meu amigo a deduzir que, do ponto de vista clínico, a UE perdera a sanidade mental. Existe a pressão no sentido de assegurar a igualdade de condições, a própria antítese da criação de riqueza e postos de trabalho, que depende essencialmente da procura das diferenças. E agora temos o licenciamento dos operadores económicos autorizados, que beneficia largamente os que são elegíveis e prejudica todos os outros com mais custos e burocracia. Até o Governo britânico Socialista chegou à conclusão de que esta proposta, além de dispendiosa, é absurda e perigosa e deve ser descartada."@pt17
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@ro18
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@sk19
"Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to ‘help’ with trade on the Continent. Most of that ‘help’ merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more ‘help’ will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin."@sl20
"Fru talman! Detta betänkande är en självmotsägelse. Regeringar kan inte detaljstyra företag. Sedan när har EU tagit initiativ till något som förbättrar handeln, minimerar kostnaderna, minskar byråkratin, skapar nytt välstånd och nya arbetstillfällen samt minskar trycket på företagen? När i all världen? De flesta regeringar kan endast hoppas på att bidra till den ekonomiska tillväxten genom att undanröja hindren och skapa ett företagarvänligt klimat. Regeringarna borde ägna sig åt att göra det möjligt för människor att lyckas med sina initiativ. Därefter bör de ta ett stort kliv tillbaka.
Förenade kungariket har ett mycket stort, permanent och växande problem när det gäller synen på EU. Tror någon på allvar att EU, genom att ta kontrollen över den bolagsrätt som rör små och medelstora företag, kommer att förändra eller förbättra den situationen? Tror ni verkligen att det är möjligt, särskilt när dessa förslag grundar sig på tyska och franska idéer om en social marknad?
Jag stöder det som Godfrey Bloom just sa. Hur många av er här har någonsin startat ett nytt företag på egen risk? Skapat nya arbetstillfällen? Grundat det själva och med framgång drivit det i, låt säga, 20 år? Hur många av er har gjort det? Hur många personer i utskottet har gjort det? Hur många av er vet vad det innebär att starta ett nytt företag i Förenade kungariket? Nåväl, jag ska tala om det för er. Med mindre än hundra pund och tio minuter i telefonen kan man göra affärer överallt. Jämför det med dessa förslag. Vi har haft vår bolagsrätt under århundraden i Förenade kungariket, så tackar så mycket. Och den fungerar alldeles utmärkt. Vi har också små och medelstora företag som driver handel över hela världen, och de klarar sig fint. De flesta av deras mardrömmar beror på tidigare vilseledande försök från EU:s sida att ”hjälpa till” med handeln på kontinenten. Merparten av den ”hjälpen” hindrar dem bara från att driva sin verksamhet, och tanken på ännu mer ”hjälp” skulle hälsas med fasa.
Under årens lopp har vi sett mästerstycken av oavsiktliga konsekvenser från det här stället. Det gäller arbetstidsdirektivet, som för en av mina arbetskolleger var det slutgiltiga beviset för att EU är fullständigt galet. Det gäller ansträngningarna för rättvisa konkurrensförhållanden, själva motsatsen till välstånd och skapande av sysselsättning, som helt och hållet hänger på att hitta olikheter. Och nu har vi fått licenser för godkända ekonomiska operatörer, som i väldigt stor utsträckning gynnar de som uppfyller kraven och försvagar alla andra genom extra kostnader och byråkrati. Till och med den socialistiska brittiska regeringen har räknat ut att detta förslag är en kostsam och riskfylld orimlighet som hör hemma i papperskorgen."@sv22
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Ashley Mote,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"on behalf of the ITS Group"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples