Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-29-Speech-5-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991029.3.5-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, following the excellent interventions by Mr Souchet and Mr Martinez on maintaining the French ban on British beef, I would just like to add three observations, from the legal, moral and political points of view.
From the legal point of view, it is obvious that the French act of 1 July 1998, establishing the Agency for food safety, infers that France has sovereign power to safeguard the health of its citizens. It is equally clear that Article 95 of our Treaty, in the way it has been reinforced since Amsterdam, says the opposite, out of an absurd desire for standardisation. This kind of contradiction between national law and Community law also exists in the area of hunting and in many other areas, as if governments were signing abstract European commitments whose aberrant practical consequences they only discover later. In this type of contradiction, the ultimate yardstick can only be the free choice of each nation; otherwise the whole European system will explode.
We must also consider the moral dimension of this business. There is of course a superior moral principle which requires a government to safeguard its citizens’ fundamental interests. But neither must we lose sight of the fact that the catastrophe that was mad cow disease which struck our British partners could have struck in any one of our countries, as we all practise the same policy of high productivity in agriculture that goes against nature, and which is more and more subject to the worldwide doctrine of free trade.
As far as this policy is concerned, all Member countries share collective responsibility. I would not say that this applies to all sectors of our relationships within Europe; nor would I say that about our relationships with third countries, but within the Union, there is undeniably a common agricultural policy and a joint responsibility with regards to this policy. This is why we should find it understandable that the European budget gives particular help to British livestock farmers. And whatever you say about it, there is no shortage of money! Only yesterday, Parliament’s Federalists found the means to set aside EUR 60 million – yes, EUR 60 million – for a unified statute for MEPs which would be completely useless and which, moreover, has not yet been decided.
Finally, the political dimension and political thinking: how can we get out of this mess? Well, beside the compensation that I have just been talking about, I think that the only solution to this business is to make screening tests available as quickly as possible. Until then, the principle of prudence must prevail; otherwise, our citizens’ trust will be broken a little further.
In broader terms, we should agree on the need for high-quality farming, which will respect the environment as well as consumers’ health, and which will ensure our self-sufficiency in food production. But this kind of farming requires Community preference, which we should now go and fight for in Seattle.
I think that a positive outcome of today’s debate would be to reach agreement with the British in recognising that this must be one of our main priorities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples