Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-171"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:WTO Millennium Round (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991117.6.3-171"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-17-Speech-3-1722
lpv:speaker	lp:Albert Jan Maat2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Mr Lamy, I would like to point out that expanding free trade also opens up scope for Europe. We should not have any fears in this respect. However, my concern is that the world, further to a new WTO agreement, may become richer economically speaking but poorer in the area of culture and environment or in terms of agriculture or horticulture, and that we may lose out on business in those areas which are essential for Europe. It is important to find a balance in this respect. This is why I am delighted with the Schwaiger report, because this very report indicates that we should hold on to what is essential to us, whilst keeping an open mind towards the world, and because this report links political reality and the issues we can defend on behalf of Europe’s citizens in our capacity as parliamentarians. It is essential that we voice the issues that are apparent within Europe. I would also like to make two remarks regarding agriculture and horticulture. The representative of the Council said this morning that the Berlin Agreement forms the starting point for these negotiations, but he also mentioned that agriculture could well prove to be a sticking point. In this respect, I feel that Europe should be more on the offensive. May I remind you that as a trading bloc, we are the largest importer and second largest exporter? At the same time, in a couple of years, out of the total budget for agriculture, horticulture and rural development, a mere 10% will be earmarked for product support. In other words, if we take into account the national budget, then we note that only 2% of government spending within Europe is set aside for agriculture, horticulture and rural development. If we refer to the 10% of this amount for product support, this is a negligible amount worldwide. To all those who advocate the dismantling of agricultural policy within the framework of the WTO, I would like to point out that Europe boasts its own standard in terms of the environment, animal welfare and consumer protection. Whoever is in favour of scrapping the European agricultural policy, also favours the scrapping of all we have acquired in Europe in terms of rural policy, animal welfare and welfare in general. This means that I also defend the European standard and we, as a Parliament, have to opt in favour of the Schwaiger report, because it offers guarantees for freer trade but, at the same time, also offers guarantees for preserving what we pride ourselves on, rightly so, within Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph