Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.17.3-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against this report because its broad premise is to submit public services to competition and to a future internal market for services, in light of the compromise reached by the Council over the notorious Bolkestein Directive.
At the same time, it covers up the effects of the sectoral liberalisations that have already taken place in areas such as transport, energy and communications. Contrary to what is claimed, and as many user groups and consumer protection organisations have proved, liberalisation has led to more difficult access to services, lower service quality, higher prices and the loss of thousands of jobs, on the pretext of sectoral restructuring.
The idea of dividing services of general interest into economic and non-economic, from a commercial perspective, is actually part of an attempt to put almost all public services at the mercy of the market.
Our position is to defend the exclusive competence and sovereignty of the Member States in defining how public services are to be funded and how that funding is to be organised. After all, public ownership is a fundamental element in protecting high-quality public services, so as to guarantee universal access throughout EU territory, supply at socially fair prices and the democratic involvement of end users in defining, managing and determining the quality of these services."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples