Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.19.2-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We are strongly critical of the reasoning behind the establishment of a Globalisation Fund. For a start, it is based on the idea that globalisation
is a problem. In our view, globalisation is a way of increasing prosperity, especially for poor, developing countries, provided that significant economic actors, such as the EU and the US, reform their protectionist trade policy positions at the World Trade Organization.
The Member States of the EU are capable of implementing national measures to support those sectors that they deem to be in need of financial assistance. A special EU fund would guarantee arbitrariness, inefficiency, bureaucracy and unjustified expenditure. How is the Commission to decide, in a relevant way, whether globalisation has had a negative impact on a given sector? Moreover, the amounts that are currently under discussion indicate that this could almost be considered to be a PR stunt by the EU.
For the above reasons, we have voted against the report in question."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples