Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.12.2-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, yet again we see just what can be done with a common organisation of the market. My congratulations to the rapporteur. If every common organisation of the market were as anti-cyclical as what Mr Garot has proposed, or if all organisations of the market were to work in favour of smaller holdings, as Mr Busk has just said, then holdings in Europe would be structured very differently. The way in which the organisations of the market have worked in the past has served rather than impeded the concentration process.
It is interesting to see how the tables have turned. Those who, like me, tend to oppose the organisation of the market in the usual sense, support this proposed amendment. Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, who has fought tooth and nail to prevent other organisations of the market from being withdrawn or to get co-financing for them, now says there should be no co-financing here. If we were to apply the co-financing estimated here, i.e. 50%, to the other organisations of the market, for example in sugar, where the PPE is vehemently opposed to any change, that would instantly free up huge resources.
Mr Busk is worried that the WTO would be unable to accept this, but he takes a quite different view when it comes to the organisation of the market in sugar which, if you please, we must defend against the WTO. This is a model just like the American model. We are introducing an insurance system and can easily demonstrate that social aspects play a part. I really do think that what the rapporteur has done here is a brilliant achievement; it shows just what you can do with administration when you set your sights on a specific objective and the objective is clearly specified here. Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, this objective does not suit you. Then you should say so and we can argue it out. This objective suits me fine and, as I say, if we had applied it in other organisations of the market, we would have a very different structure today.
As for co-financing and European contributions: the Commission has suggested adding an insurance system to the current organisation of the market, but only using money from the holdings themselves. I mean, what sort of a proposal is that? It is certainly no good to us. That leaves the other system and that is no good either because it fostered concentration. If we are going to do anything, then it must be as Mr Garot has proposed. He has turned the Commission's pathetic proposal into a reasonable, anti-cyclical, structure-securing proposal, which is why our group will vote in favour of this proposal and I trust that it will secure a majority tomorrow. I am just curious, Mr Garot, to see what the decision-makers in the Council will make of it. I personally do not think that it stands a chance. It is because its objective is designed as I have just described that it will most probably be swept straight off the table, unless the French presidency has something up its sleeve which it can use as a sweetener. And after that, it will probably be a first class funeral, but at least it will have been interesting!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples