Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.4.2-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, for many Liberal Democrats the opt-out represents an important principle of subsidiarity. We support measures that protect individuals from exploitation at work. We are not convinced that it is for the European Union to be the body that imposes unwanted restrictions, that have nothing to do with health and safety, on individuals in every Member State. We strongly disagree with Mr Hughes, of the British Labour Party, that the European Union should lay down the law with regard to the work/life/family balance of people everywhere. It is not surprising that we have to counter so much Euro-scepticism in Britain when senior Members of this Parliament call for the EU to be allowed to interfere in the lives of individuals to such an extent.
We have a European single market, but that does not overrule the fact that Member States compete against one another. If the people of one country want greater social protection at the risk of damaging their competitive position, then they should vote for a government that will do that. In many cases the Liberal Democrats will support them. But blanket controls imposed on every country by Brussels will limit the freedom of Member States to decide the approach most appropriate for them. It is excessive and wrong.
It is also condescending for this Parliament to seek to impose restrictions on others, while excluding executives, MEPs and Commissioners. Speaking for myself, I have never worked less than a 48-hour week and I do not intend to start doing so. Applying these restrictions rigidly to workers in the tourist industry and the agricultural sector, with their extreme seasonal fluctuations, will simply drive people into the black economy. That is no way to promote the Lisbon Agenda. For practical reasons and for reasons of principle, the right to opt out should remain."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples