Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-320"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.13.2-320"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in my previous life I ran two manufacturing businesses, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands. As the UK business grew, we invested in more people, as the Dutch business grew we invested in more machinery. The simple reason for this was that social costs in the Netherlands were just too high in comparison.
I am in favour of social protection, I am in favour of the original Commission document, but I do not want to see people priced out of jobs because social protection costs become unrealistically high. That is why in committee I proposed some form of business impact assessment, so that costs and risks to jobs could be taken into account, and the EPP-DE Group supported this amendment. But I must record that other groups, led by the PSE Group, guided by my countryman, Stephen Hughes, voted this out.
I accept that Mr Andersson's report is very well-intentioned, and I respect him for the work he has done, but in my view the way the report defines and promotes social convergence would drive social costs higher throughout the EU. This would put more jobs at risk and also put at risk the credibility of this House by showing how remote we are from the real world. I therefore urge this House to reject the full report and let the original Commission proposal, which was very well-balanced, stand unamended."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples