Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.23.3-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I, like the large majority of my political group, supported the Hatzidakis report because:
· call for an increase in resources for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, because an unequal Europe cannot be viable;
· call for better control of state aid, so that it is not an incentive for relocating businesses within Europe at the expense of the workers in various regions.
· it supports the regions in danger of being damaged by the statistical effect of enlargement;
· it calls for the outermost regions to be treated as a special case as regards their access to the Structural Funds;
· it proposes that unspent resources due to the N+2 rule be reallocated to areas which can make good use of them;
· it rejects any renationalistion of regional policy spending;
· it calls for fair treatment for islands and sparsely populated regions;
· it makes the rights of people with disabilities a prime priority of cohesion policy.
The amendments which I tabled with other MEPs of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left:
· strengthen the text and make clear to the European Commission and the Council that competitiveness and entrepreneurship cannot be promoted at the expense of sustainable development and cohesion;"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples