Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-073"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-24"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Toetusprogramm Euroopa audiovisuaalsektoris (MEDIA 2007) (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061024.6.2-073"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-24-Speech-2-074⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Thomas Wise⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ENVI (2005-09-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; UK Independence Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; CULT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; IND/DEM (2004-07-20--2007-07-19)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Dette forslag har været endnu et vigtigt element i forsøget på at pådutte en intetanende offentlighed EU's idealer og censur. Det drejer sig mindre om støtte til erhvervslivet i EU og mere om at beskytte det mod konkurrence udefra i den virkelige verden. Jeg må spørge, hvorfor er dette forslag nødvendigt? Nå ja, måske fordi EU ved at gennemføre et sådant program kan udnytte endnu et område, hvor budskabet kan videregives til folk, der ikke vil tro eller overveje muligheden af, at de bliver manipuleret. Jeg citerer: "Det skal understreges, at … Media-programmet nu (indeholder) langt klarere referencer til europæisk films betydning for den tværkulturelle dialog." Men her ses helt bort fra den større interkulturelle dialog mellem de forskellige europæiske kulturer og dem, der er i resten af verden, f.eks. i Indien. Ikke alene det, men hvert eneste aspekt af denne betænkning fremfører endnu et forsøg på indblanding i erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter. Vi får at vide, at programmet vil koste 671 millioner euro. Vi ved også, at den der betaler musikken bestemmer melodien. Men hvor er den ekstra værdi? Hvem har fordel af det? Der ses bort fra, hvad folk kunne have lyst til at se, hvis de havde valgfrihed. Men EU vil have fordel af det ved at forvride markedet i borgernes bevidsthed. Åh ja, EU's borgere, disse stakkels mennesker, som er blevet påtvunget EU-borgerskabet, som det er umuligt at slippe for!"@da^2,2 ". Herr Präsident! Dieser Vorschlag ist ein weiterer Schachzug im Bemühen, einer nichts ahnenden Öffentlichkeit EU-Ideale und Zensur aufzuerlegen. Hier geht es doch weniger um die Förderung von Sektoren in der EU als vielmehr darum, sie vor Konkurrenz von außen in der realen Welt zu schützen. Da muss ich fragen: Warum ist dieser Vorschlag notwendig? Nun, vielleicht weil die EU bei der Umsetzung eines solchen Programms noch einen weiteren Bereich ausnutzen kann, wo ihre Botschaft an Leute gesandt werden kann, die nicht glauben oder damit rechnen werden, dass man sie manipuliert. Ich zitiere: „Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass (...) das MEDIA-Programm nun eindeutiger hinweist auf die Bedeutung des europäischen Kinos für den Dialog zwischen den Kulturen“. Doch man ignoriert völlig den umfassenderen Dialog zwischen den verschiedenen Kulturen Europas und der Welt, beispielsweise des indischen Subkontinents. Nicht nur das, sondern jeder einzelne Punkt dieses Berichts steht für einen weiteren Versuch, in eine kommerzielle Aktivität einzugreifen. Man sagt uns, dass das Programm 671 Millionen Euro kosten wird. Wir wissen auch: Wes Brot ich esse, des Lied ich singe. Aber wo ist der Mehrwert? Wer hat etwas davon? Man ignoriert, was die Leute vielleicht sehen wollen, wenn sie die freie Wahl hätten. Die EU wird allerdings etwas davon haben, indem sie den Markt in den Köpfen der Bürger verzerrt. Ach ja, EU-Bürger, diese armen Leute, denen eine Bürgerschaft aufgezwungen wurde, aus der es noch kein Entrinnen gibt!"@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η παρούσα πρόταση αποτέλεσε άλλο ένα στήριγμα στις προσπάθειες επιβολής των ιδανικών της ΕΕ και της λογοκρισίας σε ένα ανυποψίαστο κοινό. Αφορά λιγότερο τη στήριξη που παρέχεται στις βιομηχανίες της ΕΕ και περισσότερο την προστασία τους από τον εξωτερικό ανταγωνισμό στον πραγματικό κόσμο. Πρέπει να θέσω το εξής ερώτημα: για ποιον λόγο είναι απαραίτητη αυτή η πρόταση; Ίσως, διότι κατά την εφαρμογή ενός τέτοιου προγράμματος, η ΕΕ μπορεί να εκμεταλλευθεί έναν ακόμα τομέα, μέσω του οποίου τα μηνύματά της φτάνουν σε ανθρώπους που δεν πιστεύουν ή δεν διανοούνται ότι τους χειραγωγούν. Παραθέτω: «Πρέπει να επισημανθεί ότι (...) το πρόγραμμα MEDIA περιλαμβάνει πλέον σαφέστερες παραπομπές στη σπουδαιότητα του ευρωπαϊκού κινηματογράφου για τον διαπολιτισμικό διάλογο». Αγνοεί όμως πλήρως τον ευρύτερο διαπολιτισμικό διάλογο μεταξύ των διαφόρων ευρωπαϊκών πολιτισμών και εκείνων του ευρύτερου κόσμου, για παράδειγμα εκείνου της ινδικής υποηπείρου. Εκτός αυτού, καθένα από τα σημεία της έκθεσης αυτής αποτελούν μία ακόμα προσπάθεια παρέμβασης στην εμπορική δραστηριότητα. Μας λένε ότι το πρόγραμμα θα κοστίσει 671 εκατομμύρια ευρώ. Γνωρίζουμε επίσης ότι όποιος πληρώνει έχει και το γενικό πρόσταγμα. Πού βρίσκεται όμως η προστιθέμενη αξία; Ποιος ωφελείται; Δεν λαμβάνονται υπόψη οι επιθυμίες του κόσμου, δεδομένης της ελευθερίας της επιλογής. Ωστόσο, η ΕΕ θα επωφεληθεί από τη διαταραχή της αγοράς στα μάτια των πολιτών. Μάλιστα, των ευρωπαίων πολιτών, εκείνων των άμοιρων ανθρώπων στους οποίους επιβλήθηκε η ιθαγένεια, από την οποία δεν υπάρχει ακόμα καμία διέξοδος!"@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, esta propuesta no es más que otro intento de imponer los ideales y la censura de la UE a un público desprevenido. No se trata tanto de apoyar las industrias en la UE como de protegerlas de la competencia exterior en el mundo real. Quiero preguntar: ¿por qué es necesaria esta propuesta? Bien, tal vez porque al implementar un programa como este, la UE puede explotar todavía otro ámbito en el que su mensaje llegará a personas que no creerán o considerarán que están siendo manipuladas. Cito: «Es necesario recordar que (…) el programa MEDIA hacer ahora una referencia más clara a la importancia del cine europeo para el diálogo intercultural». Sin embargo, el programa ignora por completo el diálogo intercultural más amplio entre las diferentes culturas europeas y las del reto del mundo, por ejemplo la del subcontinente indio. No solo eso, sino que cada uno de los aspectos de este informe suponen claramente otro intento de interferir en la actividad comercial. Se nos dice que el programa costará 671 millones de euros. También sabemos que manda el que paga. Pero ¿dónde está el valor añadido? ¿Quién sale ganando? Pasa por alto lo que la gente querría ver si tuviera libertad de elección. Sin embargo, la UE saldrá beneficiada al distorsionar el mercado en la mente de los ciudadanos. ¡Oh sí, ciudadanos de la UE, pobres gentes a las que se les ha impuesto una ciudadanía de la que no tienen escapatoria!"@es²⁰ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, tämä ehdotus on jälleen uusi tapa, jolla EU:n ihanteita ja sensuuria pyritään tyrkyttämään hyväuskoiselle yleisölle. Siinä ei ole kyse niinkään EU:n teollisuuden tukemisesta kuin sen suojelemisesta ulkopuoliselta kilpailulta todellisessa maailmassa. Minun on kysyttävä, miksi tämä ehdotus on tarpeen? Ehkäpä siksi, että tällaisen ohjelman täytäntöönpanossa EU voi hyödyntää jälleen uutta alaa sanomansa välittämiseksi kansalaisille, jotka eivät usko joutuvansa manipuloinnin kohteiksi tai ota tätä mahdollisuutta huomioon. Mietinnössä todetaan, että "on pidettävä mielessä, että (…) Media-ohjelmassa viitataan nyt selkeämmin eurooppalaisen elokuvan merkitykseen kulttuurien väliselle vuoropuhelulle". Siinä kuitenkin sivuutetaan täysin laajempi kulttuurien välinen vuoropuhelu eri eurooppalaisten kulttuurien ja koko maailman kulttuurien, esimerkiksi Intian niemimaan kulttuurien, välillä. Joka ikinen mietinnössä esitetty näkökohta on odotetusti osoitus taas uudesta yrityksestä puuttua kaupalliseen toimintaan. Meille kerrotaan, että ohjelman kustannukset ovat 671 miljoonaa euroa. Tiedämme myös, että se, joka maksaa viulut, määrää tahdin. Mutta missä on ohjelman lisäarvo? Kuka siitä hyötyy? Ohjelmassa sivuutetaan se, mitä kansalaiset haluisivat nähdä, jos heillä olisi vapaus valita. EU hyötyy kuitenkin vääristelemällä kansalaisten mielikuvaa markkinoista. Juuri niin, EU:n kansalaisten, näiden ihmisparkojen, jotka pakotettiin ottamaan EU:n kansalaisuus, josta ei ole toistaiseksi pakotietä!"@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, cette proposition constitue une autre tentative d’imposer la censure et les idéaux européens à un public peu méfiant. Elle ne vise pas tant à soutenir les industries européennes qu’à les protéger de la concurrence extérieure dans le monde réel. Je dois demander pourquoi cette proposition est nécessaire. Peut-être parce qu’en exécutant un tel programme, l’Union peut exploiter un domaine de plus où elle peut envoyer son message à des gens qui n’imagineront ou ne croiront pas qu’ils sont manipulés. Je cite: «il convient de rappeler que (…) le programme MEDIA mentionne plus clairement l’importance du cinéma européen pour le dialogue interculturel». Il ignore cependant tout à fait le dialogue interculturel plus vaste entre les différentes cultures européennes et celles du reste du monde, par exemple, celle du sous-continent indien. Ce n’est pas tout: chaque aspect de ce rapport tente d’interférer dans les activités commerciales. On nous dit que le programme coûtera 671 millions d’euros. Nous savons également que celui qui paie a le droit de décider comment son argent sera dépensé. Mais quelle est la valeur ajoutée? Qui en tire profit? Le programme ne tient pas compte de ce que les gens pourraient vouloir voir, s’ils avaient le choix. Toutefois, l’Union européenne en profitera en faussant le marché dans l’esprit des citoyens. Ah oui, les citoyens européens, ces pauvres gens obligés d’accepter la citoyenneté, à laquelle il n’y a pour l’instant aucun moyen de renoncer!"@fr⁸ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, questa proposta è un ennesimo tentativo di imporre gli ideali e la censura dell’Unione a un pubblico fiducioso. Non si tratta tanto di sostenere i settori dell’Unione, quanto di proteggerli dalla concorrenza esterna nel mondo reale. Devo chiedere: perché è necessaria questa proposta? Forse perché, attuando un programma del genere, l’Unione può sfruttare l’ennesimo settore in cui far giungere il suo messaggio a persone che non penseranno né immagineranno di essere manipolate. Cito: “Occorre ribadire che [...] il programma MEDIA contiene ora riferimenti più chiari sull’importanza del cinema europeo per il dialogo interculturale”. Tuttavia, la relazione ignora completamente il più ampio dialogo interculturale tra le diverse culture europee e quelle del mondo esterno, per esempio quella del subcontinente indiano. Non solo questo, ma ogni aspetto della relazione costituisce puntualmente l’ennesimo tentativo di interferire nell’attività commerciale. Sappiamo che il programma costerà 671 milioni di euro. Sappiamo anche che chi paga i suonatori sceglie la musica. Ma dov’è il valore aggiunto? Chi ne trae beneficio? Il programma ignora ciò che le persone potrebbero voler vedere, se avessero libertà di scelta. Tuttavia, ne trarrà giovamento l’Unione, falsando il mercato nelle menti dei cittadini. Ah, sì, i cittadini dell’Unione europea, quella povera gente cui è stata imposta la cittadinanza, dalla quale al momento non esistono vie di fuga!"@it¹² "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@lv¹³ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, dit voorstel is de zoveelste poging om communautaire idealen en censuur op te leggen aan een nietsvermoedend publiek. Het heeft niet zozeer te maken met het verlenen van steun aan bepaalde sectoren in de EU, als wel met het beschermen van die sectoren tegen concurrentie van buitenaf in de echte wereld. De volgende vraag is onontkoombaar: waarom is dit voorstel noodzakelijk? Nou, misschien omdat de EU door de tenuitvoerlegging van een dergelijk programma het zoveelste gebied kan ontginnen waarop zij haar boodschap kan overbrengen aan mensen die niet geloven of zelfs maar op de gedachte komen dat ze gemanipuleerd worden. Ik citeer: “Er zij op gewezen dat in het Media-programma … thans op helderder wijze wordt verwezen naar de betekenis van de Europese film voor interculturele dialoog …”. Het programma gaat echter voorbij aan de grotere interculturele dialoog tussen de verschillende Europese culturen en aan de culturen in andere gebieden van de wereld, zoals India. En dat is niet het enige; uit alle onderdelen van het verslag blijkt dat dit een hernieuwde poging is om de commerciële marktwerking te belemmeren. Wij krijgen te horen dat dit programma 671 miljoen euro gaat kosten. Wij weten ook dat wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt. Waar is echter de meerwaarde? Wie profiteert hiervan? Er wordt geheel aan voorbij gegaan naar welke programma’s de burgers zelf willen kijken aangezien hun keuzevrijheid wordt beperkt. De EU trekt hier wel profijt van omdat zij de burgers een verwrongen beeld van de markt opdringt. Ach ja, de burgers van de EU, die arme mensen die het Europees burgerschap opgedrongen hebben gekregen waaraan voorlopig nog geen ontsnappen mogelijk is."@nl³ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@pl¹⁶ ". Senhor Presidente, esta proposta constitui mais um marco nos esforços para impor os ideais e a censura da UE a um público desprevenido e confiante. Tem pouco a ver com o apoio às indústrias da UE e muito a ver com a protecção destas contra a concorrência exterior que existe na vida real. Tenho de perguntar: por que razão é necessária esta proposta? Bem, talvez porque, ao implementar um programa destes, a UE possa explorar mais uma área em que a sua mensagem pode ser transmitida a pessoas que nela não acreditam ou percebem que estão a ser manipuladas. Passo a citar: “Recorde-se que (…) o programa MEDIA contém actualmente referências mais claras à importância do cinema europeu para o diálogo intercultural”. Mas a verdade é que ignora totalmente o grande diálogo intercultural entre as diferentes culturas europeias e as do mundo mais largado, por exemplo do subcontinente indiano. Não apenas este ponto, mas todo e qualquer aspecto deste relatório lança paulatinamente mais uma tentativa de interferir com a actividade comercial. Dizem-nos que este programa irá custar 671 milhões de euros. Também sabemos que “quem paga ao tocador é que lhe diz a música a tocar”. Onde está, então, a mais-valia? Quem beneficia? Ignora-se o que as pessoas poderiam querer ver se lhe fosse dada liberdade de escolha. No entanto, a UE vai beneficiar ao distorcer o mercado nas mentes dos cidadãos. Ah sim, os cidadãos da UE, esses pobres diabos a quem foi imposta uma cidadania, da qual ainda não há escapatória possível!"@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, this proposal has been another plank in the attempts to impose EU ideals and censorship on an unsuspecting public. It is less about support to industries in the EU, and more about protecting them from outside competition in the real world. I have to ask: why is this proposal necessary? Well, maybe because in implementing such a programme the EU can exploit yet another area where its message can be delivered to folk who will not believe or contemplate that they are being manipulated. I quote: ‘It is to be recalled that (...) the programme MEDIA has now clearer references to the importance of European cinema for intercultural dialogue’. But it wholly ignores the bigger intercultural dialogue between the different European cultures and those of the wider world, for instance that of the Indian subcontinent. Not only that, but each and every aspect of this report duly sets out another attempt to interfere with commercial activity. We are told that the programme will cost EUR 671 million. We also know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But where is the added value? Who benefits? It ignores what folk might want to see, given freedom of choice. However, the EU will benefit by distorting the marketplace in the minds of citizens. Ah yes, EU citizens, those poor folk who had citizenship forced upon them, from which there is as yet no escape!"@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Detta förslag har varit ytterligare en del i försöken att föreskriva EU ideal och påtvinga censur på en intet ont anande allmänhet. Det handlar mindre om stöd till industrierna inom EU, och mer om att skydda dem från konkurrens utifrån den riktiga världen. Jag måste fråga: varför är detta förslag nödvändigt? Ja, kanske för att EU genom att genomföra detta program kan utnyttja ytterligare ett område för att föra ut sitt budskap till folk som inte tror eller räknar med att de manipuleras. Jag citerar: ”Det skall påpekas att Media-programmet (…) nu på ett tydligare sätt tar fasta på den europeiska filmens betydelse för interkulturell dialog”. Men man ignorerar fullständigt den större interkulturella dialogen mellan olika europeiska kulturer och dialogerna på ett internationellt plan, på den indiska subkontinenten till exempel. Det tar inte slut där, utan i varje del av detta betänkande fastställer man vederbörligen ytterligare ett försök att blanda sig i ekonomisk verksamhet. Vi får höra att programmet kommer att kosta 671 miljoner euro. Vi vet också att den som betalar bestämmer. Men var finns mervärdet? Vem gynnas? Man ignorerar det som folk kanske vill se, om de ges friheten att välja. EU kommer dock att gynnas genom att marknaden snedvrids i folks huvuden. Å ja, EU-medborgarna, dessa stackare som fick ett påtvingat medborgarskap, från vilket det inte finns någon undanflykt!"@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Thomas Wise,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "on behalf of the IND/DEM Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}