Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050606.17.1-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what we need to do today, I believe, is to send a very clear signal to Europe’s countryside. Whatever major changes may occur in the market, Europe must remain visible, tangible and recognisable. What became apparent last week was that ‘market, market, market’, in other words money alone, does not bring Europe any closer or touch the hearts of the people. There is more to it: a social dimension and a liveable countryside. That is why it is such a splendid thing that this programme is so broad-based and that the Committee on the Regions, on which I had the privilege of sitting, has adopted amendments which making explicit provision for regional and local involvement and, at the same time, for an integrated approach. Not only agriculture, but also natural landscape and tourist activities play their part in this development, and we must actively encourage new features, such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for the sake of business innovation. Switching to different functions in the countryside will definitely have an impact in the sort of rural and urban areas that we have in the Netherlands, where plenty of proposals are ready to be tabled in order to make changes by engaging in reconstruction in rural areas. These include achieving the Gothenburg and Lisbon objectives, maintaining strong agriculture, and, not least, all the innovation that is possible in processing right down the food chain.
I should like to endorse Mr Maat’s earlier suggestion that more flexibility be tolerated between the columns and also in the subsidy percentages.
Finally, Europe is currently being haunted by the spectre of renationalisation. It is already rearing its head as a reaction to common European policy, but will be even more prominent in 2013 when the next financial battle will be fought. I am opposed to it on the grounds that it leads to less Europe, less recognisability and less closeness to those people in the countryside, a large majority of whom, while looking to Europe, have said ‘no’ to the Constitution. Not because that is not what they want, but because there is uncertainty in the policy, and that would be counterproductive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples