Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-28-Speech-3-076"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-28"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common principles on flexicurity (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071128.15.3-076"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-28-Speech-3-0772
lpv:speaker	lp:Roberto Musacchio2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partito della Rifondazione Comunista - Sinistra Europea (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-22--2009-02-04)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; EMPL (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, flexicurity is nothing new. It is an old Danish model, dating right back to the late 19th century, whereby security not enshrined in contracts of employment is guaranteed by the government, at great cost. What is new in this Europe of ours is terrible insecurity, which affects young people at work but damages society as a whole. In order to combat this insecurity we must change tack and dispense with the methods and ideologies which brought it about. It is not true that insecurity creates jobs and economic growth; the opposite is true. Now, with flexicurity, we are experimenting with a new ideology, but one that preserves the old model of insecurity intact. For this reason, my Group has fought for some very practical ideas: against the idea of a labour market rigidity indicator and in favour of a good employment indicator, so as to emphasise that stable, secure employment is the norm; against unjustified dismissal, in that it amounts to discrimination; against a recurring accumulation of atypical contracts, or lifelong insecurity, which is a modern form of slavery; in favour of the right of those not in employment to an income, as they cannot live on air alone; in favour of bringing together different forms of welfare assistance; and against discrimination affecting women at work. The fact that no resources have been earmarked to guarantee flexicurity – there has been a 2% cut – and consequently that no reliable investment is possible, speaks volumes about the risk of this operation turning into nothing but hot air. Workers and young people are calling for something tangible, not for outdated ideologies. These are the points that we have fought for in this House and would like to see voted through."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"laissez-faire"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph