Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-044"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Organisation of working time2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050510.4.2-044"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-10-Speech-2-0452
lpv:speaker	lp:José Albino Silva Peneda2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-10-12--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Coligaçao Força Portugal (PPD/PSD.CDS-PP) (2004-07-20--2007-11-22)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-10-12--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal before us is a good one, based as it is on balance and common sense. It is in tune with the Lisbon Strategy, it protects small and medium-sized enterprises, and it contains a number of points providing for greater flexibility in the labour market. There are some controversial elements, however, the first of which is the opt-out. The possibility of keeping the opt-out would mean that the Union would be adopting a directive on delicate aspects of minimum standards to be met in the area of health and safety at work, and yet would be also saying in the same directive that compliance with those standards is entirely optional. Continuing this practice cannot therefore be seen as a form of flexibility. What it would mean is deregulation in an area as sensitive as health and safety at work. The European economy needs greater flexibility in the labour market, but not at the expense of an absence of rules. There are other, more effective, ways of bringing flexibility into the labour market, such as extending the reference period, which is covered in this proposal. This is, moreover, guided by the subsidiarity principle, in that it gives the Member States the freedom to choose to set the reference period anywhere between 4 and 12 months, depending on the situation in the country, without the EU unilaterally imposing a set period. Lastly, as regards working time and rest time, there is no reason for Parliament not to abide by the rulings made by the Court of Justice. Once again, this proposal fails to uphold the subsidiarity principle, which would accord the Member States the right to set out methods for calculation as they see fit for the purposes of salaries and counting working time. Let me state very clearly that, in the proposal that has been tabled, there are no other possible outcomes than those I have mentioned."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph