Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-01-Speech-4-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010301.3.4-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I have just voted in favour of the Amending Budget 1/2001 of the European Union for the 2001 financial year, which provides for an extra EUR 971 million to cope with the consequences of the BSE crisis. I would like to stress, however, that this figure had been calculated by the Commission in January and it already appears to have been completely overtaken by events. Since last Monday, we have found ourselves faced with a paradox, where the European Union cannot, or does not want to, provide French farmers with extra funding and is leaving France to cope in total isolation by allowing it to provide exceptional national aid. At a time, then, when the crisis is hitting hard and when European solidarity is needed most, the European Union is falling unceremoniously by the wayside.
I am admittedly the first to say that the overall European budget should not be increased as it already costs us a fair amount of money and that we must adhere to the 2000-2006 Financial Perspective approved by the Berlin Council in 1999. Even so, this does not mean, however, that nothing can be done. For the time being, the Financial Perspective still leaves us with a margin of EUR 506 million for 2001 under the headings for agriculture. In the short and medium term, there is no reason to leave this sum sitting there, even if the allocated funding for agriculture has all been spent. Instead of increasing the European Union’s total budget, there is another possibility, which is to transfer the expenditure under the Structural Funds heading to the agricultural section of the budget. In recent years, this expenditure has never been totally exhausted and, in any case, it is not always spent on such urgent needs (excluding funding to the applicant countries, of course). Moreover, this would not constitute misappropriation as, first and foremost, the aim of the Structural Funds is to support activity throughout the whole Union, and this would be the case if the funds were helping to combat the devastating consequences of BSE. The problems that we are experiencing would justify this unusual step.
It is becoming obvious to us all that, over the longer term, Europe’s agricultural policy, which may have had the distinction of helping to develop our agricultural industry in the 1960s, is now having adverse effects – handouts, bureaucracy, price inflation and intensification, which poses a health risk – to such an extent that far-reaching reform is inevitable. We have said for years that we must put in place much stricter rules than we have today to promote respect for nature and health, without increasing the burden on taxpayers. Logically speaking, the consumer should pay the difference by buying products at their actual price, or at a price that is closer to reality. In the same way, if we want to maintain our independence in the food sector, imports will of course, on the one hand, have to be subject to the same safety rules and, on the other, will, in certain cases, have to be subject to taxes to allow production to be continued in European countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples