Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-044"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001026.2.4-044"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-26-Speech-4-0452
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexandros Alavanos2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-04-14)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-04-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". I voted against the Haug report, just as I voted in favour of my group’s motion to reject the general budget for 2001. First: because the budget of the European Union is not commensurate with the huge economic needs of the Community of the 15, especially of the countries and regions lagging behind. Secondly: because the new items for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia – which we need and which should be more substantial – have been found by slashing items for food relief, agriculture, social spending, etc., rather than by increasing the budget, which is what the Member States of the European Union should have done, given that they perpetrated and aided and abetted the destruction of the former Yugoslavia. Thirdly: because the budget remains a mechanism for applying a policy which falls short on the social and development side and which has not been reorganised despite constant warnings of the fall in the euro."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph