Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-14-Speech-1-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051114.13.1-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to be able to speak directly after the rapporteur.
There is no doubt that globalisation results in increased economic output, as well as reducing costs and the differences between corporate cultures. That is the good thing about it. It does, though, also lead to far keener competition, which can entail serious job losses and be a source of serious anxiety for workers.
Mr Christensen is quite right to say that the benefits of globalisation are not equally distributed, but it does bring progress, and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is in favour of using that progress and getting to grips with solving structural problems. If we want to look forwards and compete – as we must – then there must be reforms, but we must, at the same time, find innovative ways of responding to social challenges.
In June, my colleague Mr Brejc put together an excellent report, which was even-handed enough, concentrated on the essentials and came up with crystal-clear solutions, but its 17 compact paragraphs were suddenly inflated into 39 by the desire of certain Members on the Left of this House to introduce a whole new dimension into it, which they believed to be necessary. I have to say that I do not agree with them! In the twinkling of an eye, they make effective institutions into instruments of regulation; one can almost feel the bureaucrats breathing down one’s neck. They urge the Commission to monitor the compatibility of fisheries partnership agreements with the Millennium Development Goals, and stress the importance of such issues as the threat of eco-destruction and the loss of biodiversity.
If the subject were ‘the ecological dimension of globalisation’, then that would be all well and good and we could talk about it, but the report is about ‘the social dimension of globalisation’. There are times when one has to concentrate on the matter in hand if one is not to end up in considerable difficulties. It is grotesque that demands should be made for such things as measures to deter businesses from relocating in order to obtain EU subsidies. Where a business is to be based is not decided at short notice and with payments from Brussels in mind; it is a long-term process involving major financial transactions and long-term decision-making by management.
Let us cut through the tangled growth of repetitious verbiage, irrelevant matter and high-flown ideological posturing; what the own-initiative report called for was in fact perfectly clear, namely extensive investment in human capital, improvements in countries’ educational systems, the promotion of professional expertise – which is more urgently needed than ever – and the creation of high-quality jobs in line with the Lisbon Strategy.
What, then, of the ILO? I agree with the rapporteur, and with some of those who have already spoken, that the ILO must concentrate more on humane working conditions. We must carry on struggling to prevent social exclusion, to do away with child labour and to win the war on poverty. What the ILO needs is observer status within the WTO, and we would welcome an institutional multi-stakeholder forum on corporate social responsibility. Small and medium-sized enterprises need to be better inter-connected if they are to be enabled to actively participate in a globalised economy and if new jobs are to be created, and the social partners need to be involved in all decision-making processes if the social dimension is to be strengthened."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples