Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-15-Speech-4-021-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Recent Council decisions and Commission revision of the EGF regulation - Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (application EGF/2009/019 FR/Renault from France) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111215.3.4-021-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-12-15-Speech-4-022-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:José Manuel Fernandes2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2010-03-05--2014-06-30)3 member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with India (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, I am grateful for the question. With regard to the European Regional Development Fund, to cohesion policy funding and to the European Social Fund, there were many people who were against a 10% increase in cohesion policy funding, whose opinions have developed and changed. As regards the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), there were many people who did not agree with the increase in relation to cofinancing who have also changed their minds. My proposal is not for all Member States, but for the Member States in receipt of a bailout package. I do not know if this proposal in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was generalised or was only for those Member States. Therefore, what I am advocating, and I was clear – and I hope this House will be able to back this one of these days, because it is almost a question of logic – that what has happened with cohesion policy, what has happened with the EAFRD, should, logically, even also be approved for workers. We are well aware that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund does not compete with the European Social Fund but rather complements it, so I believe it makes perfect sense for the contribution to go from 65% to 95% for countries in receipt of a bailout package."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "a fortiori"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph