Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.12.3-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we are talking about temporary events and I know that being the favourite Commissioner of Mrs Riis-Jørgensen is at most a temporary situation – it may imply an in and out evolution in this lucky status. I believe I continue to deserve that status, not only because of the inherent generosity of Mrs Riis-Jørgensen, but also because I believe – and I say this in front of witnesses! – we are sticking exactly to the promise made to you and to others in Parliament.
Why was this mechanism adopted as temporary? First because the Commission – and I in particular – was totally against the re-introduction of an unlimited, permanent mechanism on operating state aid for shipbuilding. It therefore had to be temporary. Temporary means two things; it is not permanent and it must have a logical criterion to define how temporary it is. The logical criterion there was the reasonable expectation about the duration of the procedure before the WTO. We might be accused of logical incoherence if, after having proposed this – it was also decided by Council and Parliament – we were now to depart from that logical criterion.
To be more direct, I confirm that this is not by any means meant to be the re-introduction of a permanent mechanism. It continues to be strictly related in time to the conclusion of the WTO procedure. I should like to further clarify – and I am sure Riis-Jørgensen will appreciated this – that in spite of other views, no extension of the scope of application to other market segments has been introduced."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples