Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-025"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-01-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Services of general interest2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040113.2.2-025"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-01-13-Speech-2-0262
lpv:speaker	lp:Herman Schmid2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Herzog really has had a thankless task. If there is one area in which opinion in this Assembly and general opinion throughout the EU is deeply divided, it is precisely this area. The problem is that we have legislation for the internal market that is in actual fact an invitation to unrestrained and unlimited competition where both goods and services are concerned. That is something we cannot live with. It is said that it is mainly a question of services of economic interest. Which services are not of economic interest? Is not the education sector of economic interest? Is not the health sector of economic interest? Are not all the social services of great economic interest? We are talking about welfare policy as a whole and about something that really is political dynamite. If there is a desire for balanced development and for stopping this general attack on the welfare sectors, what is to be done? Are we to pin our faith on a framework directive? I am a little unsure. In and for itself, a framework directive could place limits upon legislation governing the internal market. It would of course be good for calming things down and reducing the intensity of antagonisms. In the political climate of today and of the next few years, I am afraid, however, that such a framework directive would be heavily dominated by adherents of the market and by right wing forces. In that case, such a directive would be a step in the wrong direction and might instead become a trap. Is decentralisation a better alternative? Is it better to focus upon protecting local and regional activities? It would perhaps open up certain other possible ways of securing a type of protection and increased opportunities for conducting a local campaign to protect what we wish to preserve. Above all, however, we need time for research and discussion as a counterweight to the giant battle we face over the next few years."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph