Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.11.2-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We should naturally like to congratulate the rapporteur on the result obtained. In particular, the amendments tabled by Mr Mulder (ELDR Group) might well mean that the European agricultural policy is finally looked at. Although we cannot agree on the content of the current sugar policy, we have voted in favour of the amended report because, more than anything, policy is about keeping prior arrangements, as in the case of Agenda 2000. We should, however, like to underline that the evaluation, with the possible reviews in 2003, should very much take place. In our opinion, it is wrong just to talk about reviews and subsequently delay the decision-making process, which will ultimately lead to a decline in social support for agriculture.
The present European agricultural policy is no longer appropriate to our times. The era of firm product subsidisation will, in the short term, need to be replaced by another system. The landscape, for which the agricultural sector is largely responsible, will need to be maintained, and we can imagine that a compensatory income will be provided for this. The European citizens will understand this.
We should also like to make a general remark on rapporteurs and their possible vested interests in the topics of their reports. We would ask you to include in the Rules of Procedure a clause to the effect that any interests must be notified beforehand so as to avoid even the semblance of a conflict of interests."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples