Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-376"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050413.23.3-376"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Good evening, Mr President. It is a pleasure to have a compatriot in the chair for this evening’s sitting. In the case before us, a British cellophane factory has been enticed to relocate to the State of Kansas, purely on the basis that that State has derogated fiscal and environmental legislation.
Unfortunately, this is not an exception to the rule, because the rule itself has encouraged such action. This case, in common with the Alstom case that was discussed earlier, clearly illustrates a well-known problem, namely that of relocations for reasons of anti-social or anti-environmental competition. I could give you similar examples in Portugal.
Indeed, the day before yesterday, workers came to Strasbourg from Yasaki Saltano, a firm that has two plants in Portugal, and 10 altogether in Europe. This Japanese multinational has employed 7 500 people in Portugal, yet today it employs half that number. Just yesterday the board issued the threat that without further government support 500 more workers would be laid off in August. It should be pointed out that this company was given land and infrastructure free of charge, that it had enjoyed Community funds for years, that the level of work-related diseases, such as arthritis, among its workers is abnormally high and that this is the argument used by the board not to issue redundancies but to persuade the sick to resign.
Mr President, this lie has to come to an end some time. It is sad to see the Commission’s impotence in such cases, which shows that it has given up. The United States and the EU call one day for the end of protectionism at the World Trade Organisation, only the next day to reinstate it or establish comparable benefits based on unfair criteria. The breaking of protectionism must be accompanied by higher levels of social rights and tighter environmental controls. This is the alternative to the neoliberal order in which there will be no more Kansases to complain about."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples