Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-21-Speech-4-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101021.19.4-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
The reasons justifying our abstention on this vote are the same as those justifying it in the vote on the report on the budgetary review to establish financial assistance for countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) that will be affected by the liberalisation of the banana trade between the EU and 11 Latin American countries. This liberalisation will mainly benefit the US multinationals that dominate the world market in the sector. As for the ACP countries, as several of their representatives have already stated, including some local producers, there is no chance that the sum of EUR 200 million that the EU is proposing to allocate to them will compensate them for all the effects resulting from these measures.
We must therefore ask: what was the basis of the impact assessment carried out by the Commission following the signing of the Geneva Agreement? Once again, the EU’s proclaimed objectives in the field of development, particularly as regards poverty reduction, are subject to the commercial interests of its economic groups. Therefore, saying that the aim is ‘improving the living standards and living conditions of people in banana growing areas and banana value chains, specifically small farmers and small entities’ unfortunately has little meaning."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples