Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-10-21-Speech-1-080-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131021.12.1-080-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the rapporteur protests in this document that there is no protectionist aim whatsoever, as though the word ‘protectionist’ might be one of those hate labels – like ‘racist’ – that are so popular with cosmopolitans. The rapporteur is using the word ‘protectionist’ in its strict economic sense, referring to tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade. However, if he had been using it in a more general and everyday sense, his denial would be equally valid.
The EU is emphatically not trying to protect Europe’s interests, still less the interests of its Member States. The objective is to follow the World Trade Organisation’s globalist agenda. Retaliation would not be used to protect Europe’s economic interests but to enforce observance of the WTO’s globalist rules. The theory of international trade is that unrestricted trade makes the world as a whole richer. However, even if that were always the case, it would not follow that it made everybody or every country richer too.
The free movement of goods and services, capital and labour – which is of course what all globalists, including EU globalists, are driving for – can only work if prices and wages are on undifferentiated scales. If that happens, the developed world, including Europe, has everything to lose. The third world and emergent economies have everything to gain."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples