Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.33.2-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It goes without saying that the Dutch Members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are in favour of more modulation, of transferring funds from the first to the second pillar of the agricultural budget. Modulation is, from a social democratic point of view, a considerable improvement on the unfairness of the present income subsidies. Indeed, the biggest farmers receive disproportionately a great deal more than the others. Moreover, income subsidies are inefficient, because they insufficiently increase farmers’ spending power.
Rural development offers more opportunities for all people living in the countryside. Young and old need good facilities, a strong infrastructure and a diverse economy. Rural development is also in the interest of the large majority of farmers.
Although voluntary modulation is less desirable than compulsory modulation on account of the possible distortion of competitive relations between European farmers, the Dutch Labour Party can go along with it nevertheless, because it represents a step in the right direction. The Council has taken a decision, though, without walking the most basic democratic path first. The European Parliament has not been heard about this major intervention in the budget.
The unfortunate fact is that, due to this democratic deficit, it is impossible for us to support the motion for a resolution, and we have therefore abstained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples