Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-13-Speech-2-015"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission legislative programme and work programme for 2008 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071113.4.2-015"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-13-Speech-2-0182
lpv:speaker	lp:Francis Wurtz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2006-12-13--2009-07-13)3 substitute; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Parti communiste français (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2007-01-31--2007-12-11)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, along with my fellow Members I listened closely to what Mr Barroso said. I believe that my Group is not the only one here hoping for a clear response from you to these questions, failing which each of us will have to consider what form of reaction would be the most appropriate. If you enjoyed the manner in which the House mobilised its efforts against the Bolkestein Directive then you will certainly love the outcry that will be caused by the Mandelson Regulation. He set out the Commission’s strategic objectives, with growth and employment naturally being at the top of the list of priorities. Nevertheless, I noted that, as in the communication from the Commission, there was something singularly missing from his presentation and I would now like to ask the Commission President quite specifically about this. Is it true that on 23 October the College of Commissioners debated a proposal that had been put by Mr Mandelson concerning European firms and businesses that had moved their production to third countries where wage levels were low? This proposal was possibly aimed at exempting the said companies from the anti-dumping duties that apply to products exported to the Union at prices that are significantly lower than their normal value. Is it true that this proposal received a large measure of support and that the Commission is to take a formal decision on this subject after 5 December? How do you respond to those who see in such a measure nothing more than a financial subsidy for relocating production? Would such a move not be totally inconsistent with those sections of the Commission communication that we are discussing here today, including the following: Recent research shows that the main concern for EU citizens is ‘the social dimension of the EU in the context of globalisation (in particular jobs and the fear of unemployment).’ Or else: ‘The global competitiveness agenda contributes to creating lasting growth and jobs at home.’ Why was there no mention either in your presentation or in the Commission communication of the legislative programme for 2008 or of any project relating to major political issues such as the promotion of employment in the EU, industrial policy and, more generally, the benefits that the Community can derive from the current phenomenon of globalisation? Finally, is it true that, foreseeing the major disruption that such a subject could cause during a vote in Parliament, not to say in the Council, you are planning to bypass the legislators by opting for guidelines instead?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph