Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-220"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.27.3-220"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
There is no doubt that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) will be a worthwhile financial instrument offering a European-level response to job losses caused by the opening up of the markets and by increased pressure from international competition. Redundancies are one of the principal adverse effects brought about by the phenomenon of (economic) globalisation, alongside the acknowledged benefits.
I am bitterly disappointed, however, that the objective of setting up the EGF, under the terms of the Commission's proposal, is to enable the Community to offer support with the aim of reinstating the jobs solely of workers who have lost their jobs due to significant structural changes in world trade. This view demonstrates a misunderstanding of the phenomenon of globalisation. It overlooks the fact that, apart from the liberalisation of world trade, the freedom of movement of capital and the deregulation of the market, which are also driving forces behind globalisation, they too could lie at the root of the job losses attributed to globalisation. Against this backdrop, I tabled several amendments to the proposal, in the context of the opinion issued by the Committee on Regional Development, for which Mrs Madeira was responsible.
Although the report before us maintains the scope of the EGF, it also introduces a series of amendments to the Commission’s proposal which significantly improve it, add to it and clarify it. I therefore voted in favour."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples