Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-363"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-04-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Redundancies at Alstom2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050413.22.3-363"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-04-13-Speech-3-3642
lpv:speaker	lp:Alain Lipietz2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I am standing in for my colleague, Mrs Flautre, with whom I have been following this matter for five years. I think that Mr Désir’s speech set out the real problem. I said to former Commissioner Monti years ago that the day would come when the Competition Directorate-General’s main task would be not so much to refuse aid as to see whether that aid was properly used. What authorises a country to award State aid in apparent violation of Article 87 of the Treaty? It is the fact that Europe considers it to be in its interest because, if this aid were refused, jobs would be lost that could not be replaced. A source of expertise, and of work in the interests of the EU’s objectives, of its citizens and of its consumers would disappear. In their great wisdom, the Competition DG and the Commission granted this aid to Alstom a year ago. It was not a case of bowing to pressure from the French Government. It was a case of expressing an opinion on the fact that, in the condition in which Alstom was proposing to continue, yes, it was worthwhile for a state to grant it aid. It was good for the whole of Europe. Well, if this assessment was right a year ago, it is right today. However, Alstom is in the process of proving that, when it asked for this State aid, it was not trying at all to maintain the supply of clean technologies in Europe, it was not trying to contribute to the objective of full employment in Europe. It was simply trying to obtain State aid according to the principle of the privatisation of profit and the nationalisation of loss. This is something that neither the left nor the right in Europe can accept. I therefore believe that we have here a key example on which the Commission should base its policy. If the fairly extensive list of authorisations for granting State aid – there are a dozen cases in Article 87, which is also retained in the Constitution – really forms the basis, so to speak, of industrial policy in Europe, this is the time to prove it. The Commission must say whether the aid granted a year ago simply served to bail out the Alstom group’s shareholders or whether it really served the interests of the people of Europe, their future, and in particular compliance with the Kyoto Protocol."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph