Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.27.3-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I am hesitating over a term with which to describe Mrs Bachelot-Narquin’s report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
Demagogic? Yes, because behind an attractive title suggesting that Brussels is going to come to the aid of the economic and social victims of untrammelled globalisation, one finds a more mundane reality: the criteria and methods of granting this fund give rise to the fear that it will not be going either to the employees or to the labour market areas that need it. They may even encourage businesses to use bypass strategies or to look for spin-off benefits.
Redundant? Undoubtedly, as is the European Social Fund.
Cynical? Definitely, insofar as the Commission is pretending to help mitigate the consequences of its own internationalist economic and trade policies. It would be less costly for it to compromise these policies for the benefit of European businesses and employees.
However, the report is not useless in everyone’s view, and it is definitely very useful where Brussels’ propaganda is concerned. Article 9 of the regulation, further enhanced by Mrs Bachelot-Narquin's Amendment 38, does indeed stipulate that the Member States must make it widely known that the Commission is the one paying. As if this money were not coming out of the Member States’ budgets, that is to say, out of the pockets of the Europeans themselves!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples