Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.7.2-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Members of the Communist Party of Greece will be voting against the Bushill-Matthews report because the specific "Measures on financial assistance for innovative and job-creating Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)" proposed in the report form part of the more general policy exercised by the monopolies and the EU against SMEs, to which there are three strands:
4. The results of this policy are even worse: 2 238 new jobs were finally created, compared with several million unemployed in the ΕU, at a cost of EUR 122 000 (GDR 42 million) each.
5. 97% of SMEs which benefited from these measures come under the third strand of the programmes, i.e. the companies received guarantees for funding for which they themselves were wholly responsible.
This begs the question of how a complicated procedure which cost so much and achieved so little can be presented as a successful EU policy. As far as Greece is concerned, it was nowhere to be found in the programmes; no funding whatsoever came our way.
We shall therefore be voting against the report in question and the relevant Commission proposal.
· Selective support for a small group of what are – by Greek standards – medium-sized and large enterprises, with a view to consolidating their satellite role around the monopolies and strengthening the processes used to concentrate capital and production.
· Worsening competitive terms for the overwhelming majority of the remaining small and medium-sized enterprises, in a bid to strengthen the same processes by the back door.
· In addition to the aforementioned, it is clear from all the EU programmes on SMEs that big business is keen to ‘offload’ (on to SMEs) the jobs which it is forced to abolish as it increases its exploitation of the working classes, helped by technological progress. This aim will be thwarted by the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system and therefore has little chance of success.
It is also important to note that isolated companies, not SMEs as a whole, benefit from European programmes. Big business knows only too well that a policy which benefits SMEs as a whole would create an adversary to be reckoned with. Hence, even if grants under European programmes manage to reach small enterprises, they cannot be used to advantage, because each of these enterprises is in an extremely weak position on the capitalist market.
A number of observations on the substance of the specific programmes bears out the general comments made above:
1. The limits on the enterprises targeted by these measures (250 employees and up to GDR 14 billion in annual turnover) clearly allow what are large companies by Greek standards to benefit. In fact, 91% of companies in Greece employ up to 4 persons and achieve turnover of up to GDR 60 million. From this point of view, the concern about small enterprises expressed in the parliamentary report is well-founded.
2. The total number of SMEs targeted by these measures is negligible compared with the total number of SMEs in the ΕU: 7 387 out of a total of some 15 million SMEs in the ΕU or 0.05% of the total number over a period of two years from application.
3. The total paid out by the European funds in grants is discouragingly low and does not amount to a real policy for the benefit of SMEs. A total of EUR 273 million has been paid out (GDR 93.6 billion) or EUR 18 (GDR 6 170) per enterprise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples