Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am somewhat amazed. You, Commissioner, have argued that we will, by means of this directive, influence transport policy towards sustainability. I would very much like to remind you what sustainability means. It was specified at Göteborg that sustainability is an equilateral triangle of the economic, the ecological and the social. Let me just ask you a simple question: in what way were you promoting sustainability when, by means of this directive, you are jeopardising safety in ports? It can make for worse damage to the environment and does nothing to improve the protection of it. In what way are you strengthening the social element when you allow self-handling, which means that the ship’s crew, who have been travelling on it for so long, now, in addition, have to load and unload it? Qualifications and the reduction of working time do not come into it.
Mr Hatzidakis’ argument that new jobs will be created is crazy. I beg you, if the same jobs are done by people who already have other things to do, that reduces jobs rather than encouraging the creation of additional ones. It also goes against the Lisbon agenda if we want to achieve full employment by 2012, but keep going in the opposite direction. I have to tell you in all honesty, Commissioner, that I really would have expected you to look at these aspects from the right angle. What you said was completely one-sided, and, as you said, it indicates that you want to let liberalisation advance.
If that is what you see as your objective, then it is in order for you to just say so. Then it will be perfectly clear that we can never find a common denominator, because, for you, liberalisation means nothing more than cutting costs in the economic sphere. You may well claim that it is about that, but I do not, and nor does my group.
Turning to the port workers and the pilots, you have, in the course of the debate we have had – and Mr Jarzembowski knows this too – met some of our expectations, but not others. At the end, after the conciliation process, absolutely none of the people affected are on your side – none whatever! Yesterday, we were again visited by the port workers, whose 21 000 signatures make up an extraordinary amount for this occupation, and you do not even take note of it! That means, I believe, that this directive, rather than promoting safety and social standards and thereby putting competition on a single footing, is achieving the precise opposite. For that reason, we can do no other than reject it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples