Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-15-Speech-4-017-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111215.3.4-017-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, this is a debate about three very different questions, all relating to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I am going to address the future of the fund after 2014.
We have all eagerly been looking forward to the Commission’s proposals aimed at improving the fund. There is plenty still to do if we are to really turn that Rapid Intervention Fund into what we envisioned, and we must also do something about the fact that it is being used mostly by richer, rather than poorer, Member States. However, the issue which has been totally overlooked is that of farming. I therefore read the proposal with total bewilderment.
What surprises me the most is that you actually want to divide this into two totally different instruments. A small social instrument for workers who have been made redundant and a larger instrument of EUR 2.5 billion for farmers. I believe you ought to make a choice: they should either be considered the same or different. If they are considered the same, farmers could then fall under the EGF, under the same rules. That, to my mind, would be a great solution. Or they could be treated equally, by making companies hit by crisis and globalisation subject to the same rules that you have now proposed for farmers. Should they come under threat because of EU policy or a free trade agreement, they will be able to restructure their company before it goes bankrupt.
The Flemish textile industry and the Spanish ceramics industry greatly benefited from that, after free trade with Asia forced their products off the market. However, in that case, you will be talking about a totally different instrument, one that will be an industrial instrument, which means you could throw in a few billion more.
In my view, the Commission wants to achieve something completely different with agriculture. So, take that decision and come up with an instrument that suits
and one on which we can have an agriculture-related debate. Send Directorate-General Agriculture back to the drawing board, to its own drawing board, so they can thrash the debate out there, and do not allow the problems of one group, farmers, to be prioritised at the expense of the other group, workers who have been made redundant."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples