Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060216.15.4-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Is it possible to have rural development without country people? Will there be any villages and landscapes in the wine-growing South of France if our vines are uprooted, if our cooperative and private wine cellars are made to shut down and if the winegrowers’ farmhouses are replaced by housing estates?
Will the rural development of the south west and of the Périgord, Cévennes and Causses regions come about through the disappearance of farmers, shepherds and flocks of sheep, with only senior citizens from Great Britain, the Netherlands and northern Europe to replace them?
Rural development in the second pillar is just a smoke screen. It is the fancy name used to describe the disappearance of our agricultural production to the benefit of producers from Brazil, Australia or the South Pacific, with the consolation prize of modest jobs as landscape gardeners for the surviving members of France’s and Europe’s farming communities.
Rural development is just as hypocritical a concept as ‘multifunctional agriculture’. It is a pain reliever, a palliative remedy applied to women and men from the countryside, who are knowingly and disgracefully sacrificed to the all-important ‘global deal’. In the South Pacific, the focus is on agriculture; in Europe, the focus is on the illusory services market.
Having stupidly ‘sold out’ its farmers, Europe goes and invents a pharisaic ‘rural development’ policy in the human and economic desert that Brussels has created in our countryside."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples