Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-04-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090504.17.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, though futile efforts lead to melancholy, I wish to repeat that the opt-out should come to an end, because it was intended to last for a ten-year period – which finished in 2003 – and its end is extremely important for people’s health, for combining family and professional life, for us to have a discussion that fits with the one we had half an hour ago and the one that will follow, for the international conventions of the International Labour Organization to be respected, for European social law to become a reality, for workers’ organisations to remain intact, and for citizens to continue to have faith in European institutions.
As our President has said, an agreement has not been reached because the Council’s proposal has always been to move backwards, back beyond the 19th century, making employment law merely a bilateral relationship between the worker and the employer, without laws or regulations, without anything to respect beyond so-called ‘free choice’, forgetting that there is always an imbalance of power between the worker and the employer.
This is not true; they are fooling themselves. Parliament has stirred; it has provided every kind of alternative to solve real problems, but this is an ideological problem. The Council did not want to put an end to the opt-out. A minority in the Council wanted the opt-out, which was temporary in 1993, to become permanent and, with Parliament’s vote, to be forever, leaving the hope and dignity in this battle to us.
They did not want to; they merely wanted to give the opt-out a superficial make-over, but to do so permanently, destroying one of the fundamental instruments of European social law. That is the truth, and it is not true to say it was a reduction in the working day – with the proposal from the Commission and the Council working hours totalled 78 per week – because there were to be 60 and 65 hours calculated over three months.
So please stop saying things that are not true. Stop deceiving public opinion. Admit that you wanted to make permanent what was temporary in 1993, and admit that you wanted to turn what was exceptional into something normal.
They proposed that it be a derogation, as in Article 20; a derogation, not an exception: that it be something normal. At the same time, moreover, the proposal was an unrestrained assault on the legislation of the Court of Justice. It took away doctors’ rights and it took away their working conditions. They have never even come close to our idea, or to that of the Court of Justice regarding compensatory rest for doctors. It was an unrestrained attack on workers. What is more, they have accused us of doing this during an election period. It is an honour to listen to citizens and workers.
We are experiencing a major social crisis; there is a vast distance between the citizens and our institutions. Fortunately, Parliament has not fallen to its knees before the Council and fortunately, Commissioner, there will be a new Parliament here, a new executive Council and there will probably be changes in Member States’ governments; the workers of Europe have hope: the mandate of 17 December has been retained, and we will continue our fight, Commissioner."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples