Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.10.3-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of my group I also wish to thank the rapporteur for the work that we on the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development jointly prepared.
The proposal before us now can be traced back to when my country held the presidency in 1999. Then once again it was realised that the alcohol markets need common rules. The objective is to correct the surplus situation and it is being proposed to dismantle national aid as part of the measures to be implemented. The committee, however, was unanimous in its conclusion that the whole proposal should be rejected. Synthetic alcohol should be considered comparable with alcohol of agricultural origin. The legal basis now in force makes this impossible.
The ELDR Group endorses the course of action proposed by the rapporteur as we wish to make two comments: firstly, we want to complain about the unsatisfactory way in which the Commission has prepared this matter, and, secondly, it would be good to keep the legal basis consistent from the point of view of the single market. We could in this way also proceed in the right way in COM reform. Although the Commission’s proposal is by no means totally acceptable, my personal opinion is that it would make the situation better than it is now. We on the committee drafted a good number of amendments to it which might have helped this matter to gain ground. It is a pity that now we will not effect any legislation. This is probably the sixth time this matter has been discussed by the EU institutions. The end result is always the same: nothing is done. The legal basis cannot be changed just like that. We have to continue with things as they are.
As I understand it, this is all very much based on the question of the codecision procedure relating to agricultural matters, which causes problems all the time. It is continually being discussed in the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development and often we reach a situation that is somewhat artificial.
The EU is in the process of enlarging. Soon we will have ten new Member States, and a simple matter like this, such as similar substances coming from the same source, as Mr MacCormick said here, cannot be dealt with or decided upon. The EU institutions have debated this issue five or six times and have always drawn a blank.
Ethyl alcohol and synthetic alcohol are, in my view, an excellent example of why we must swiftly address questions about the Treaty, as after 2006, with the reform of agricultural policy, Parliament will have to take some very fundamental decisions. If the Treaty prevents this kind of issue from being corrected and taken forward we really will be on the wrong track. How will it reflect on the agricultural profession as a whole and how will it be for the European agricultural model and its justification if we cannot have a decision on a matter of this sort?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples