Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-29-Speech-4-185-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110929.18.4-185-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Globalisation Fund is an entirely unnecessary reaction by Europe to the crisis. If companies are to be helped in difficult times, and that question is a separate debate, let that be done by national or regional authorities. They are generally well versed with the specific situation on the ground. There is also another reason not to support the extension of the fund: it represents the circulation of money between the capitals and Brussels and thus the expansion of European bureaucracy. Bringing the fund to an end is the only correct course. Moreover, many in the European Parliament are hypocritically granting requests for funds. Many of my fellow Dutch Members did not support these requests in previous votes but, at the beginning of September, when several requests from the Netherlands were being voted on, many of them nonetheless voted in favour. Clearly, they did so in order to appease voters in their own country or region. Moreover, the fund does not help; in fact, the opposite is true. While countries such as China and other emerging economies are focusing on new products and markets, Europe is choosing to adopt a defensive position with such a fund and is failing to link it to a growth strategy. I therefore do not support the extension of the fund."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples