Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060216.15.4-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Everything comes down to two figures: today, in the Union, services represent 70% of added value but they only amount to 20% of the exchanges carried out within the Community.
Therefore, given the impossibility of relocating the majority of service companies, the abysmal wages are relocated instead and, to this end, the Bolkestein Directive was invented. Its aim: to reduce wages to the bare minimum, to level down social protections, to limit consumer rights and to dismantle public services. This is not even ultraliberalism any more; this is outright liberalism.
Far from settling the problem of the country of origin principle and far from protecting public services from the merciless law of the market, the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament does nothing other than place the Commission and the Court of Justice in the role of final arbiter. Given the ultraliberal stance of the Commission and the Court of Justice, allowing them to assume such a role is like putting foxes in charge of a henhouse.
To accept the Services Directive would amount to signing the death warrant, in Europe, of employee and consumer protection and of public services.
The nations of Europe do not need a directive that takes the social and fiscal policy choices they made on a democratic basis and pits them against one another."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples