Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.12.1-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, one of Mr Hökmark’s central contentions is that the market economy is always the most efficient means whereby resources may be shared out. If we take Gothenburg seriously, it makes sound business sense to rely on the equilateral triangle between economic, social and environmental development, but the statement is flawed in economic terms.
If Mr Hökmark – as he himself is right to say – wants small and medium-sized enterprises to be efficient and innovation to be driven forward, above all by subsidy, then what is needed alongside that is good training, good education, and the right infrastructure – not just in the great conurbations, but also, of course, in rural areas. He is therefore forced back onto the need for territorial, social and environmental cohesion.
If not, the simple fact is that people who live in places without these favourable and natural conditions are put at a disadvantage. That being so, I do indeed urge that a great deal of care be taken when considering where aid is to be applied, and it also has to be considered whether services in the public interest benefit from it, or else there is no point to it.
In one respect, I can tell Mr Hökmark that he is absolutely right. He writes that it makes no sense to give aid to businesses that are already profitable, and in that I agree with him.
When I say that that sort of aid is wrong, I am thinking of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the highly-profitable motor industry into which money is shovelled, only for the firms to then close down and take production elsewhere with the help of more subsidies. That cannot be what aid is for. In that respect, Mr Hökmark, you have got it absolutely right.
There are a whole load of models that we have to change. The
threshold is the right one. It is indeed the case that regional aid is needed for the more backward regions in particular, and it cannot be denied that aid under Article 87 will continue to be needed for those regions currently affected by the statistical effect."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples