Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.3.3-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
State aid has become a dirty word within the EU. This is partly justified. State aid can mean that the tax money we have all helped to raise for community tasks has been transferred to friends of politicians in government to give them an unacceptable advantage. More often, however, state aid has been a means of protecting weak regions, disadvantaged professional groups and vital public services, or of protecting society against the effects of major economic crises. For example, following the 1929 crisis, attempts were made to crank up the economy by means of huge, Keynes-inspired investments. These days, these forms of aid are often treated as a form of distortion of competition because they contravene the liberal principle of competition and go against government cutbacks. In this light, each regulation that grants tiny scraps of state aid appears an improvement on a harsh, all-encompassing form of liberalisation which makes problems completely impossible to solve. Unfortunately, this proposal, targeting vulnerable groups of employees in small and medium-size enterprises, is immediately being rendered ineffective by a plea for the labour market to be made even more flexible. Cutting back on employee protection is therefore promoted as the best way of guaranteeing more employment, and aid is seen only as a last resort. This is sufficient reason for me to vote against the proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples