Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090309.17.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Many thanks, Madam President, many thanks, Commissioner. As Mr Surján said, the available budget is tight – 1% of gross national product. Thus we must be all the more careful with the funds, particularly in view of the crisis weighing on people’s minds. We should also attempt to come to decisions together.
There is one part of this report on which no joint decisions are possible. This concerns energy supply and energy security. I ask myself whether, at a time when we have to account for every single euro, we should really be investing money in fields where there are market players making billions in profits. Support is being proposed for gas pipelines such as the South Stream project of the Italian group Eni, which made a profit of EUR 10 billion. Nord Stream is a project of E.ON, a German group making a profit of EUR 5 billion, and Nabucco brings together a German, an Austrian and a Turkish company with total profits in excess of EUR 6 billion. Should we really be putting taxpayers’ money into fields in which profits are made? Should conglomerates perhaps be making the relevant investments themselves, and should we perhaps be involving ourselves in only those fields in which support from taxpayers is really desirable? We should not be throwing more money at those who are earning enough as it is. Hence the question: is this really what we want?
My second question is as follows. If we do support companies, why Nabucco? Why do we want to create imbalances in this regard? Why do we want to favour a Hungarian company over an Italian one, for example? What is your justification for this? Competitive neutrality is a must, but it is infringed by what you are hoping to adopt.
My third point is that the money must be spent in Europe. What is the use of our investing in Azerbaijan? In the face of the crisis, our European citizens want us to provide solution mechanisms. They expect us to provide assistance.
We cannot support the Surján report as it stands, as this would mean promoting competition-distorting measures and throwing more money at high-earning institutions and industries. The European Union, with its scant resources, absolutely cannot afford this."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples