Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100210.25.3-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Treaty of Rome contains one sentence on this subject. It says, ‘men and women shall be given equal pay for equal work’. Now, that sounds pretty straightforward. We all think we understand what that means.
But what has happened in the subsequent decades is that, through a process of judicial activism, the European Court has progressively extended the meaning of that phrase beyond anything that a reasonable person would assume. First, it defined ‘equal pay’ as meaning equal pension rights and equal holidays and so on. Then it defined ‘equal work’ as being work of equivalent value. How is an employer supposed to judge that? Is it a question of how hard it looks like someone is working? Do they have to factor in the availability of suitably qualified applicants? Then, in the South-West Trains case in Britain, it was extended to look at the rights of spouses of same-sex unions. Now we are talking about reproductive rights.
There is an argument for all of these things. You can take the view that the state ought not to regulate contracts between employers and employees or you can take the view that we need this legislation. But, whichever side you are on, surely that is an argument that ought to be had by elected representatives who we can vote for and vote against. It is outrageous for them to be imposed on us by a court. A court with a mission is a menace; a supreme court with a mission is a tyranny."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples