Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-12-Speech-3-174"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080312.13.3-174"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-03-12-Speech-3-1752
lpv:speaker	lp:Olle Schmidt2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2006-10-19--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Folkpartiet liberalerna (2006-10-19--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". There are two things that an EU supporter has to explain (if not defend) when he goes home and talks about his work in the EU. One is Parliament’s travelling circus shuttling back and forth to Strasbourg. The other is the question of subsidies to agriculture. In both cases the present system is equally impossible to defend – and explain. There are no good reasons for us to travel to Strasbourg. There is also no reason why EU taxpayers should subsidise the British Royal Family, which is currently one of the main beneficiaries of the system, while at the same time African producers are excluded. The Goepel report adopted entirely the wrong approach; I therefore voted against it. I did so mainly because I think its intentions point in the wrong direction: more direct support, fewer reforms, less market orientation. The Commission has made a fair amount of progress in changing over to a more up-to-date system of support to agriculture. It is regrettable that Parliament seems to want to turn the clock back."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph