Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-111"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040310.3.3-111"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-10-Speech-3-1122
lpv:speaker	lp:Lennart Sacrédeus2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kristdemokraterna (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"I have voted against all the amendments and, in the final vote, against this report since we are of the opinion that the EU is wrong to continue with and give more aid to olive groves than was indicated in the Commission’s original proposal. We think that these subsidies should be phased out and the taxpayers’ money used more appropriately. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sees increased subsidies as a problem of principle. Since many developing countries are entirely reliant on cotton production, EU aid distorts the competition. These countries are even less well placed than regions within the EU to solve the transitional problems that arise if part of the production is stopped. Parliament’s proposal means not only greater subsidies than those proposed by the Commission but also places even more specific demands on products and necessitates classification systems. This may be commendable, but is often a way to protect against outside competition, in other words it is a hidden trade barrier that renders free trade difficult."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph