Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-434-245"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.27.2-434-245"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We would highlight some positive measures in this report, since, in some ways, it contradicts the neoliberal line that, unfortunately, predominates when Parliament debates public services. Positions that we advocate, but which are not always welcomed by the majority in this House, are examples of these measures, not least that public services should be of a high quality and universal; that investment in modernising infrastructure in various areas should be stepped up; that the Commission should not impose the liberalisation of public services on third countries; that compensation payments for all services of general economic interest (SGEI) that the Member States consider to be satisfying essential social needs should be ensured; and that the existing exemption without thresholds for hospitals and social housing should be retained.
Regrettably, however, it stresses the difference between services of general interest and SGEI, which, in itself, weakens the scope of the report. It is only for these that it provides for State aid as compensation awarded by the state or the public authorities to companies charged with providing SGEI, often subjecting them to competition rules. That is why we abstained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples