Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-23-Speech-3-365"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050223.21.3-365"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, previous speakers have explained the situation clearly and set out what needs to be done to resolve this most critical situation. I have to bite my tongue and avoid referring back to some of the demands made concerning the REACH regulations, which will come into force in eleven years' time, undermining the competitiveness of Italian and European industry, which now seems to be facing very different and more immediate competitive challenges.
Like you, I have long union experience behind me, on which I should like to draw to make two observations. Firstly, exactly one year ago, on 10 February 2004, we were discussing here in Parliament the case of Terni, the steel industry and the wider crisis in European steel-making. On that very day we were informed that the dispute was being resolved at ministerial level and that negotiations were being started which were ultimately to lead to the June agreement which, today, ThyssenKrupp has once again torn up.
Why was such an agreement possible at that time? In my view, for one fundamental reason only: because ThyssenKrupp had been isolated, both nationally and on a European level. The exceptional mobilisation of the workers and citizens of Terni and Umbria, as previously referred to, played a leading part in that political process. The Terni plant is not a mere factory; it is an integral part of the town. Today, the same situation is being played out once again. Today, as before, we are seeing an attack not only on a professional body, a production capability, a tradition, but on the dignity of the entire population of a town. This must be the starting point for the renewal of a powerful unity which will again leave ThyssenKrupp in an isolated position.
A second comment also drawn from my union background: why has ThyssenKrupp chosen today to take two apparently contradictory initiatives? It has sent us the letter describing the problems in detail, while simultaneously laying off, or threatening to lay off, a further 600 workers, for more or less plausible reasons. In my view, the company is afraid of being isolated again by this Parliament. That explains the importance of the agenda on which we shall be voting tomorrow.
Commissioner, I appreciated your speech and the pointers you gave, notwithstanding the Commission’s limited powers, of which we are perfectly well aware. However, the Commission can perhaps do something politically, possibly at the most senior level, as it did last year, thereby making a significant contribution to the isolation of ThyssenKrupp."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples