Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.8.1-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this report represents a huge missed opportunity. I urge Parliament to think about what kind of message we will send to the European tax-payer and the farmers in the candidate countries if we roll over again, as Mr Daul proposes.
I have no problem with Mr Daul personally rolling over for the sugar producers – as he is one. He can roll over as much as he likes, but this Parliament should resist any temptation to roll over the sugar regime yet one more time. Why is it that with increasing pressure on farm spending, any real chance to reform the CAP is greeted with a shrug of indifference in this Chamber? This report demonstrates how powerful the farming lobby is, although pressure for reform is mounting, not just from European citizens but also from far-sighted farmers themselves, who recognise that the current regime is clearly unsustainable in the long term. It has remained unaltered for 32 years and its highly protectionist nature has kept the EU sugar price at three times the world level, discriminating unfairly against consumers and damaging the competitiveness of the industry.
We now know that the WTO and enlargement commitments mean that another roll-over would wreck the EU's international credibility. A recent Court of Auditors' report concluded that the sugar regime leads to substantial costs for the EU budget and for the consumer. So what we need is serious, well-thought out reform. The long-term ramifications of Mr Daul's plans to do nothing will mean deeper and deeper quota cuts shrinking the industry and threatening employment. We have sadly been bombarded by a series of unfounded claims on storage levy and the ACP, ignoring the fact that the money saved could actually be redirected towards other agricultural expenditure.
I am angry with the outcome of this report and concerned that the unanimously agreed view of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy was ignored by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples