Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.3.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I hope that the future will bring increasingly frequent and effective dialogue between the different elements in Parliament, for once again, this morning, I was listening to Members speaking, and can be little – or rather no – doubt that the position of the European People's Party was misinterpreted.
We do not oppose the Paulsen report – we fully support it. There is a significant reason underlying our contribution, particularly regarding Article 5, which stems from the fact that, although this is a major, coherent instrument, its scope is still limited, for it concerns production measures and does not deal in any way with the commercial side of things. As a result, we European consumers will find ourselves continuing to buy meat and milk and their derivatives that are produced on the world markets using animal feedingstuffs which are in no way subject to the thresholds and limit values defined by the European Union, under a system which allows raw materials to be acquired on the international markets, where producers are free to mix all types of ingredients and formulations before selling their products on Union territory.
We are calling for a comprehensive assessment of the issue precisely in order to afford better protection to farmers. In actual fact, a major measure such as the Paulsen report ends up having the adverse effect of opening the market to production systems whose quality is not sufficient to comply fully with the limits and threshold values which we require. This was the reason for our discussion in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, when all is said and done, we would not like a repetition of what usually occurs, which is that when it comes to major measures it is always the farmers who pay the price, when they are the only guarantors of a production/agricultural land ratio which Parliament must preserve at all costs.
I therefore invite all the Members to discuss the issue responsibly. We have absolutely no desire to defend specific interests; we simply want a compliant production system which does not involve going outside the market with measures of this kind."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples