Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-05-Speech-2-177-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110405.13.2-177-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Whilst voting for this report, I consider it ironic that this fund exists when not all EU countries utilise it. The share of this fund remaining at year end is repatriated to Member States as part of their ‘rebate’. Yet failure by some countries, like the UK, to use this fund, which is its established right, in cases like the Twining Tea plant closure in Andover, raises certain questions. Those pretending to understand the benefits/disbenefits of the rebate query whether or not it is more correct and efficient for countries to make direct use of EGAF monies at local level.
The second irony concerns political and economic participation – engaging at all EU levels of added value. For the UK to maintain the right not to participate in funds managed at EU level because later benefits may flow is, in this case, uncertain and perhaps even plain wrong.
The UK is renouncing access to funding on a principle of not applying for this fund in order to receive a rebate. For those seeking help to return to work – in Sandwich, Kent and Andover, Hampshire – there is little justification in saying ‘no’, and this is another UK Government let-down."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples