Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050906.27.2-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-06-Speech-2-1422
lpv:speaker	lp:Luís Queiró2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-11-14--2009-07-13)3 member; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Coligaçao Força Portugal (PPD/PSD.CDS-PP) (2004-07-20--2007-11-22)3 vice-chair; TRAN (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". I welcome the idea of untying the Community’s external aid, and Parliament itself has supported it. The point is that a good idea should not produce a bad result. The amendments tabled in the report before us are worthy of our support, firstly because it is simply not logical solely to promote competition for its own sake – especially when that competition is realised in a way that is unfair or does not respect rules that we believe are of key importance – and secondly because the purpose of granting aid should be to promote development and not to promote developed economies and our competitors. It actually makes perfect sense to attach development aid to the – indirect – financing of developing regional economies, in which case we will be helping to ensure that the aid granted is doubly effective. Yet when that serves to promote only developed economies and our competitors, we will clearly only be financing those who do not need financing. In this context, and in light of the most relevant parts of the report before us, I voted in favour."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph