Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-29-Speech-4-185"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070329.23.4-185"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"When they integrated, the 10 new Member States had to abolish their export subsidies and duty on imports from the 15 Member States of the ΕU, opening up their markets to exports and investments by the ΕU of the 15. As a result, trade and industry in the ΕU of the 15 extended its markets and investments to the agricultural and food sector of the 10 new Member States.
The consequences are set out in the report, with future reductions in agricultural spending, which means masses of small- and medium-sized farms in the new Member States will go out of business. Of course, at the same time, subsidies to small- and medium-sized farms in the old Member States are being cut.
The winners therefore from enlargement are trade and industry, mainly in the old Member States, and the losers, perhaps to a different degree, are small- and medium-sized farms in both the new and the old Member States of the ΕU.
The report states that the number and role of cooperatives is inadequate in the new Member States and that there is a shortage of producers in the food-processing industry. It deliberately fails to mention that one of the basic preconditions to accession set by the ΕU for the former socialist countries was the closure of the cooperatives of producers which prevailed in the rural economy and the privatisation of state cooperative agricultural product processing industries, a precondition which directly serves the interests of trade and industry at the expense of small- and medium-sized farms and consumers.
That is why we voted against the proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples