Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.5.3-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the supplementary budget
and the EUR 971 million are not the problem. They are simply part of normal business and we should not be perturbed by the amount of money involved. The real question is what it is used for and why it is necessary. And I say that if the European Parliament had had codecision rights in respect of Agenda 2000, a different decision would have been taken in Berlin. For example, we would have meadows instead of maize, we would have suspended intervention, all of which was proposed by the Commission and by Parliament. We would have linkage with the working costs, we would have the 1990s threshold, which applies in conjunction with the working costs. We would have adopted all these measures which are now back on the agenda, and, Mr Böge, we would then have something which we genuinely could call Agenda 2000 and progress. But now, under your influence, in which I also include COPA and the broad spectrum of the Christian Democrats, it is precisely these reforms which have been blocked. That is the major problem: we are having to address this issue again today and spend money on a policy which has gone in quite the wrong direction.
If we take Mr Fischler's proposals, it is the destruction, not the slaughtering, which is the problem. We in Europe will then feature in pictures all over the world which show the slaughtering campaigns and destruction. From a cultural point of view, and in terms of Europe's cultural claim, we cannot sustain that for very long. It would undoubtedly be sensible, Mrs Haug, to agree on the slaughtering of young cattle and calves in this context. It is not a matter of a ‘Herod premium’, but of ensuring that these new-born calves do not develop into massive bulls, but go on the market, after the appropriate tests and removal of any unsafe material, as quality meat. That was Mrs Schreyer's proposal. I regret that the proposal did not come from Mr Fischler and I hope that we will be able to follow that up later when we discuss his 7-point plan. In other words, it depends on how we spend the money. As the budget spokesman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists has pointed out, we have often reimbursed money in the past. But that is not the problem: the key issue is whether there will be enough money left over to set a new course in our agricultural policy. I can see the following danger: if we pay for the special measures required to deal with this crisis out of the normal budget, then when we do want to set a new course, the funds will no longer be available. The emergency measures will no longer be necessary, but the money will have been spent. So I think it is quite acceptable for the Member States and the EU to cover the costs here as well.
I would like those responsible for this crisis – who are not found in the political arena but in the private sphere – to pay into a compensation fund for those who have been affected, i.e. the farmers and those who have suffered human tragedy, as is the case in Great Britain …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples