Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.8.2-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
There is no common public opinion in Europe. Some issues are considered extremely important in one EU Member State, while they leave the inhabitants of another Member State completely cold. If there are opinions on certain topics, they will be completely contradictory or they will be the same right across the groups. Important examples of this are tobacco growing, the role of the regional funds, the funding of the common agricultural policy, the choice between Brussels and Strasbourg as the EP’s meeting place, tax facilities for remote islands, ocean fishing and tourism. When the topic of tourism is raised in the EP, this invariably revolves around the issue of transferring the income from the people living in northern Member States to the Mediterranean beaches. Far less attention is paid to the effects on the environment, traffic, safety and consumer protection, although there are many difficulties in those areas specifically. These problems in particular are only considered to be the responsibility of the local and regional governments, while the ‘tourist as a
cow’ is seen as something that falls within the EU’s remit. In practice, we always adopt documents that underline the economic importance of areas that rely heavily on tourism for their revenues. In many cases, these areas want even more tourists, preferably spread equally across the four seasons. It is only out of solidarity with the inhabitants of economically weak regions that I am not voting against these proposals, but I am of the view that we do not solve anything by adopting such paper proposals."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples