Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-12-Speech-2-352"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Establishing the European Globalisation adjustment Fund (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"cs"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061212.45.2-352"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-12-Speech-2-3532
lpv:speaker	lp:Vladimír Remek2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Komunistická strana Čech a Moravy (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Ladies and gentlemen, despite differing opinions over the existence of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has concluded that the fund might act as an expression of EU solidarity with workers who have lost their jobs owing to changes in the structure of world trade. In my view, the Commission’s original proposal, which was based on the discussions and compromise proposals in the committee, was better suited to the needs of most Member States, including the smaller ones, and also to the conditions faced by SMEs. The key criterion remains access to the fund. Unfortunately the document before us today concerning the establishment of the fund fails to take sufficient account of the – unanimously adopted – conclusions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. For example, the provision of financial aid still depends on reaching a minimum threshold of a thousand workers who have been made redundant. The EGF should be a source of rapid assistance. As we say in our country, ‘He who gives quickest gives twice.’ Yet there are no deadlines set out here by which the Commission must issue decisions on the provision of resources from the funds. The fact that EGF is restricted to compensation for relocations of production outside the EU is also, in my opinion, an unpromising sign, although I am aware that under Community law no other options are possible. Nevertheless, I have often heard a similar opinion being expressed during negotiations in Parliament and the Commission, and the European trade unions have also criticised the double standard in the approach to the unemployed. The proposal before us today to establish the EGF, as distinct from the version adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, does not reflect the conditions faced by the small Member States or the SMEs, which are the very backbone of the European economy. For this reason, I will not be alone in finding it difficult to lend my full backing to this version of the EGF."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph