Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.4.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, the working time directive is to provide a better deal for workers and improve family life; but will it? The best deal a worker can get is to have a job, and this directive will not improve employment or social life.
I understand that the central objective of the EU is for each Member State to bring to the table its experience and skills, its best practice and ideas, share with the rest and strengthen all. So, allow this UK representative to bring to the table today some UK experience and practice: that less regulation equals more employment. Even Mr Špidla agreed with me on that to some degree a short while ago.
Denmark and Sweden apart, the United Kingdom has the lowest unemployment rate in the whole EU, way below the average EU rate. These countries have not taken the euro and the UK has not indulged in the more restrictive employment practices. The 48-hour week, rigidly enforced, will cause small firms to close or drive people into the black economy, where they are outside of all protection and where they will become avoiders of income tax and VAT. Flexibility can be provided by the opt-outs from the working week, which are due to be phased out in spite of a vote in this House on 24 February. Organisations like the United Kingdom Government, the chambers of commerce, EuroCommerce and Sky TV all want the opt outs to continue, but these bodies do not work in the pseudo-EU world of fancy plans and dead-hand regulation – they work in the real world of profit margins and of full employment as produced by the 48-hour opt out."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples