Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-22-Speech-3-259"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081022.17.3-259"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-10-22-Speech-3-2602
lpv:speaker	lp:Eva-Britt Svensson2
lpv:spokenAs	member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; FEMM (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". The report on collective agreements in the EU is an expression of opinion with no legal value. Its intention is to strengthen employees’ positions following the Laval judgment, but the content of the report is, unfortunately, very far from being on a par with this intention. It would be wrong to renegotiate the EU’s Posting of Workers Directive, as proposed in the report. To do so would be to risk making things worse for employees. It is a risk we are not prepared to take because the conservative forces dominate the whole EU system. There are no wordings in the report about the right to strike having to take precedence over the freedom of the market and of this needing to be written in to a socially binding protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon. The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left tabled a number of amendments about this, but they were rejected by a large majority. It falls to Sweden to include an exemption in the Treaty of Lisbon, stating that the effects of the Laval judgment have no bearing on Sweden. However, this amendment by the GUE/NGL Group was also rejected. The report instead praises the Treaty of Lisbon, in spite of the fact that the treaty does not in any way alter the Laval judgment but only confirms it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph