Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-09-Speech-2-216"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-03-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100309.18.2-216"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-03-09-Speech-2-2172
lpv:speaker	lp:Ilda Figueiredo2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2009-09-16--2012-01-17)3 unknown; Coligação Democrática Unitária (PCP-PEV) (2009-07-14--2012-01-17)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2012-01-17)3 vice-chair; EMPL (2009-07-16--2012-01-17)3 member; FEMM (2009-07-16--2012-01-17)3 substitute; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-17)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2012-01-17)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2012-01-17)3
lpv:translated text	"Contrary to what the report claims, it is clear today that the process of liberalising markets and privatising public services, which is still ongoing, has not brought any appreciable gains in terms of prices, quality of service or reduction in public spending. On the contrary, consumer protection organisations and users of public services report increases in prices, reductions in service quality and increases in the cost of service provision. Liberalisation has, in fact, contributed to the loss of jobs and to the creation of private monopolies, jeopardising the rights of workers, users of public services and consumers, as has clearly happened in telecommunications, transport, electricity and with post offices. This situation has, for its part, served to worsen the economic and social crisis. For these reasons, persisting with such a policy is arguing for a continued worsening of the socio-economic situation for millions of people. It means arguing for squandering public services, which are a public resource, as well as transferring them to private groups. It means arguing for insecurity, unemployment and poverty. It means arguing for widening the gap between the richest and poorest. It means arguing for a more unjust society. That is why we have not voted in favour."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph