Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-434-225"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.27.2-434-225"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This report undeniably includes some positive aspects, including several comments that contradict the neoliberal vision that dominates this Parliament, viewing public services as areas of business, from a mercantilist perspective. We have been advocating some of the positions expressed for some time, but they have frequently been rejected by the majority, including the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the other main political groups. Examples include the position that public services should be of a high quality and universal; that investment in modernising infrastructure in various areas should be stepped up; that the Commission should not use the various forms of free trade agreement – association agreements, economic partnership agreements, etc. – to impose the liberalisation of public services on third countries; that compensation payments for all services of general economic interest (SGEI) that the Member States consider to be satisfying essential social needs should be ensured; and that the existing exemption without thresholds for hospitals and social housing should be retained.
Nevertheless, the report stresses the difference between services of general interest and SGEI, with which we disagree. Many of these services are subject to competition rules, and the state’s capacity for intervention in defence of the common good and pursuit of national interests is severely limited. That is why we abstained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples