Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-132"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010517.5.4-132"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-17-Speech-4-1332
lpv:speaker	lp:Efstratios Korakas2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2001-02-08--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". The amendments proposed by the rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are an improvement on the Commission's proposal, although they too fail to break away from the thinking behind the Regulation or address the basic worries of olive producers and the olive oil market, such as the abolition of intervention, the unaccountability and profiteering of the industry and the multinationals, the low quotas and the extortionate coresponsibility levies, that is, the disastrous consequences of Regulation No 1638/98, which have caused the olive oil market to collapse, prices to hit rock bottom and incomes to evaporate for olive producers, all of whom are small or medium-sized farmers in barren and island regions. The Commission deliberately and wittingly overlooks these consequences and does not even brook the idea of repeating intervention so as to secure a minimum wage for olive producers. It has not proposed any increase in quotas so as to at least cover existing production, preferring instead to focus on the quality of olive oil, as if the healthiest and most suitable product for consumers' health has been totally unsuitable in the past. The Commission's alleged interest in the quality of olive oil is misleading and hypocritical. If it is so interested in quality, why does it allow olive oil mixed with different seed oils to be marketed? Because that way large quantities of seed oil are sold, which have nothing in common with the nutritional value of olive oil and because that way the industry and the multinationals make more profit. What makes the Commission's deliberate undermining and blatant hypocrisy obvious is that it examines the application of measures, such as the subsidy per tree, with total indifference as to the disastrous consequences which this will have on the olive groves themselves, the quality of the product and the employment and income of the producers. And all this at a time when the Commission is arranging for mixing, that is, the adulteration of olive oil, to be legalised, is working to abolish the transportation and marketing of olive oil in cans of more than 5 litres on the pretext of avoiding adulteration, as if olive oil in cans of less than 5 litres cannot be adulterated. In other words, this measure is not intended to improve quality but to allow the industry and the multinationals to monopolise the marketing and transportation of olive oil. We need changes to the common organisation in the market in olive oil and for what is a catastrophic situation for olive producers to be reversed, not a few isolated interventions in secondary issues. Unfortunately, the Commission is able to cover up its unacceptable action with the collusion of the Greek government."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph