Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-12-Speech-2-361"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"lt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061212.45.2-361"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-12-Speech-2-3622
lpv:speaker	lp:Ona Rainyté-bodard2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2007-02-26)3 unknown; Darbo partija (2004-07-20--2009-02-16)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to congratulate Mrs Bachelot for preparing this complex report. I am sure that the authors of the Globalisation Fund idea and the rapporteur herself had a lofty goal – to help people who find themselves without a job. However, ladies and gentlemen, before voting I would like you to ask yourselves a few questions: 1. Is it really the role of the Commission to regulate and interfere in the micro-management of enterprises in the entire Community? 2. How will the Commission determine whether an enterprise is leaving the market because of the effects of globalisation or just because of normal competition? We know that every year thousands of enterprises go bankrupt due to the normal course of events. 3. How will we explain why no help is forthcoming for the employees of enterprises that go bankrupt in the normal course of events? Is this Fund likely to become yet another bone of contention among the people of the Community? 4. Why would the programmes, that the Commission is going to offer for re-qualifying, help in finding employment and other consultations, work better than the programmes already in place that are often offered free of charge? As we know, they are not very effective. The Globalisation Fund idea may make sense politically, but the proposed Regulation clearly lacks economic logic. It goes against basic free market principles and particularly against the principle of competitiveness. There is no guarantee that the funds will go to people who have found themselves without a job, rather than to consulting enterprises or other intermediaries. Therefore, without clear answers to these questions I think it will be hard to vote in favour of this document."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph