Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-108"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Competition policy2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001023.9.1-108"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-23-Speech-1-1092
lpv:speaker	lp:Luis Berenguer Fuster2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, today no one disputes, and of course I am not going to do so, the fact that state aid alters the conditions for competition and is a damaging element that encourages inefficiency in undertakings. This is certain, but if each and every one of us is honest, we have to admit that in our public life we have often defended state aid when an undertaking has required it in order to establish itself, for example, in our constituency, or in order to prevent it from closing. I began by saying this in order to highlight what is associated with some positions and to point out that when we are trying to issue a European Parliament opinion on the annual report on state aid, the Group of the Europe People’s Party tries to conduct an ideological debate in this House on state aid in which it aims to go further than anyone and to demonise all types of aid. This happened last year with the Jonckheer report, and this year, despite the more flexible position adopted by Mr Evans, it has continued to arise, perhaps in order to present the Socialists as some sort of outdated interventionists who use measures that are as damaging for the market as state aid. I have already had the opportunity to express that state aid is a transfer of public money to private companies and, therefore, that as Socialists we should also be against it. However, we cannot deny the obvious and we should recall that the Treaty does not forbid all types of aid, so some types that are aimed at objectives such as social cohesion, regional cohesion, the environment, etc. should be permitted. If that is the case, and it is, why does the Group of the Europe People’s Party refuse to accept amendments that cover that point? The same occurs when the report insists, following the Commission’s line, that aid for coal did not serve to secure the future of the industry, but in the same paragraph they refuse to accept a sentence, also from the Commission, saying that this aid was necessary in order to mitigate the social and regional impact of the restructuring of the sector. In this respect, it is difficult for us to agree with a report which, although it reflects part of the truth, refuses to include another part of the truth."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph