Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-02-Speech-4-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991202.3.4-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Gallagher, I am only too pleased to second what you have just had to say about the modus operandi. Something has to change there. But first I have something to tell you on a more cheery note. Yesterday, following the trialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, I was reassured in the Committee on Budgets that the financing for the important fisheries agreement with Morocco was secured at second reading. We have taken a significant step forward and a sound foundation has been laid for the forthcoming negotiations.
It was possible to discern the beginnings of a change of direction in the debate in the Committee on Fisheries on the report by Carmen Fraga, and this change will take hold in the new year. The joint struggle has forged bonds between us within the Committee, both on general and more specific issues. It was, and continues to be, about supplying the European market with fish and about targeted production for export so as to preserve direct and indirect jobs at sea and on land. We are a Community based on solidarity and it should stay that way.
Now there is a new Parliament and a new Commission with many new personalities and new emphases. The market situation in general, not just in relation to the WTO negotiations, and the different understanding new personalities have of traditional practices, also bring about changes in the issues dealt with in committee, both in respect of content and the weight they are given. In future, therefore, we must also examine other viewpoints more closely. The rapporteur has presented a very well thought-out report. It received a majority vote. However, the outcome failed to satisfy several Members, which means that discussions in committee will now become livelier. The Committee on Budgets has long been asking for this. At the same time, no one wants to give up the solidarity we have with an endangered but important economic and policy arm of the EU.
Solidarity cannot, by definition, be called for from one side alone, though. The unanswered questions on the GMO report are as follows: how many subsidies and customs tariffs does the fisherman need and to what extent can the industry sustain a liberalised, global trading zone? To what extent is free competition compatible with fair competition? Grants give way to helping people to help themselves. But the net must not be closed in so tightly that those concerned no longer have to make any effort at all to maintain their independent position on the market of supply and demand. Where do we draw the line between private enterprise and planned economy measures? Questions upon questions. What is more, the EU budget is tight.
Why is it necessary for financial support to be extended to aquaculture as well? It is a new market segment in the breeding sector which, in view of efficient management, is able to guarantee greater stability of planning and supply than the fishing industry is capable of. Ought it not to be the fishing industry and its market prospects that attract an increased level of financial support? It is understandable that the Member States do not say no to receiving EU subsidies for this sector. As I see it, the upshot is as follows: the Commission's proposal was amended to a considerable extent. Votes against and abstentions must therefore be respected for the reasons cited earlier. The discussion on the common organisation of the markets does not end there."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples