Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-257"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.12.4-257"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would just like to respond, very briefly, to the most important arguments raised. First of all I would like to make it as clear as possible that the Commission is definitely against production aids. Even the aids that we had in the past were intended to support improvements in structure and quality – they were not intended to be permanent production aids. In addition, I have to say that any such purely production-related aid would violate all the WTO rules.
It has been argued that we are talking about a long-term investment here. That is quite right. But every farmer who has made an investment in this area signed a contract at the outset before he made that investment, so that he knew for exactly how many years he would be receiving investment aid. So it is not as if the Commission can now be accused of some kind of cynicism because it is withdrawing support in a way that the farmers affected were not expecting. Every farmer knew for exactly how many years he would be receiving support. We need to be very clear about that here.
I have explained that there are new options. If a case is being made that this type of farming is absolutely essential for maintaining the landscape and preserving the environment, particularly in these dry areas, then this is an ideal case for environmental measures. It was precisely for this purpose that, amongst other things, we topped up the funding for environmental measures in the context of agricultural development. You cannot be right on both counts. You cannot argue that this is an important form of agriculture if it is obviously not important enough for the regional authorities to give it priority and grant support for it. You cannot have it both ways!
It has been said that this is all too little and that more money is needed, and it has been argued that this is only nought point something of the total agricultural budget. I am sorry, but the proportion of the budget the Commissioner can spend as he likes is 0.0%, so that if you want aid, you must at least play fair and say who you want to take the money away from! Because the room for manoeuvre is precisely zero, there is no leeway in the budget as has been suggested in this Chamber!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples