Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-148"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Globalisation and the internal market (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060213.13.1-148"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-13-Speech-1-1492
lpv:speaker	lp:Kyriacos Triantaphyllides2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-14)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Anorthotiko Komma Ergazomenou Laou - Aristera - Nees Dynameis (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2007-03-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, the report on the effects of globalisation on the internal market is based on an erroneous perception which has been generally promoted for some time now by the European Commission and which is leading to the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty. In other words, instead of identifying social inequalities and promoting their eradication, it takes refuge in strengthening the players who promote them, in the name of deregulation of the market. As a result, I distinguish three basic negative concepts in the report: firstly, the fact that we are calling on the European Union to define a strategy for facing the challenges in question, by making the internal market more flexible. Secondly, the fact that we are calling on the European Commission to monitor the emergency of signs of protectionism in the Member States and to report regularly to Parliament on any such signs and, thirdly, the idea that there is a need to ensure that the large European market players find sufficient support and opportunities in the internal market to develop into global market players. Anyone might reasonably conclude that, with this report, a call is being made for even greater flexibility in employment relations, the abolition of social intervention by the state and support for large companies, at a time when various studies have ascertained that the social consequences of globalisation are extremely negative; in other words, 50 million of the richest Europeans and Americans have the same income as 2.7 billion people in the rest of the world. Over one billion people on planet Earth do not know how to read and write. The top 20% in the rich countries control 82% of exports and 70% of direct investments. Three billion people in the world have an income of less than two dollars a day, while in the USA the poverty line is calculated to be 11 dollars a day. Therefore, even the official statistics do not give a full picture of economic inequality and poverty. Finally, a comparison of the years from 1960 to 1980 with the years 1980 to 2000, when markets internationalised further or globalised, shows that progress clearly slowed down over the last twenty years, when markets opened up and companies traded in conditions of unadulterated competition, when small- and medium-sized enterprises closed down for the benefit of multinationals. The report does not identify these effects, let alone address them."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph