Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.11.2-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am not going to talk at length on the great number of irregularities in this Protocol. We simply have to look at the text and compare it with the Council’s mandate to see how arbitrary the Commission has been. Furthermore, if we compare the Protocol with any other agreement with the South, it is frightening to think how sure some high-level officials in the Directorate-General for Fisheries must be of their position of impunity. That is the heart of the matter. Not the fact that there are EUR 300 million to solve the crisis facing the fleets affected by the failure with Morocco and that there is more than double to pay for fishing opportunities in Greenland which are not even worth what has been spent on their negotiation, not to mention the cost in terms of the loss of prestige and credibility of the Commission. Nor is the most important element the fact that, unlike the agreements with the South, there was no clause allowing new Member States access, nor the fact that only shipowners within the agreements with the South have to contribute to the funding of the external fisheries policy, nor the fact that it is impossible to control the spending of this considerable amount of tax-payers’ money.
The important thing, Commissioner, is that this Protocol demonstrates in a few pages the extent to which the CFP can be arbitrary and unfair. Furthermore, the Director-General for Fisheries’ attempts at an explanation before our committee could be called laughable if the gravity of the situation did not make them insulting. He thinks it is completely normal to have double standards in terms of the benefits of agreements for the North or for the South. And he added unashamedly that Council ended by approving this Protocol. Of course we are also going to approve it, because we are very aware of the difficulties of ending up without a fisheries agreement.
Neither do we have great hopes for an improvement in the mid-term review, since the Protocol makes it clear that, if one party does not wish to deal with an issue, that issue will be left out of the review. If this is not the case, if we have interpreted it wrongly, we would ask you, Commissioner, to make a gesture to calm the worst fears of the fishing industry and to put an end to the feeling that our CFP always benefits some people at the expense of others.
It only remains for me to thank Mrs Langenhagen for her work in the Committee on Fisheries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples