Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.12.3-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, unfortunately I have to say that it was I who asked to have this point debated, and for one simple reason. I find it difficult to understand why a temporary – and, I repeat, a temporary – subsidy arrangement must now suddenly be extended.
As rapporteur for Parliament’s statement on the original regulation, it is fairly clear to me that I asked the Commission for a guarantee that this arrangement would only be temporary. The Commission assured me of this, as did you too, Mr Monti. For the same reason, the regulation was also limited in time. The regulation contained, moreover, a mousetrap clause whereby the regulation would cease immediately in the event of the dispute with South Korea being resolved.
When an expiry date was placed on the regulation, it was precisely because there was no wish to see this arrangement become permanent, regardless of whether or not the dispute with South Korea was resolved. For me, this was a mitigating circumstance, since at no time have I been convinced that South Korea does in actual fact compete on unequal terms.
On the contrary, I am afraid that this regulation has only helped to distort competition internally within the EU.
I would therefore take the liberty of asking you, Mr Monti, whether the regulation is, in reality, on its way to becoming permanent, and whether you do not see this as a backward step in the fight against direct production subsidies. Could it perhaps be said that a promise has been broken in this case? I am therefore rather tired of the matter this evening."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples