Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.8.3-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the decision-making arrangements we have in the European Union, there is the chance occasionally to experience unexpected and exciting situations. I want to begin by congratulating the European Council on having reached an agreement that is extraordinarily sound and extraordinarily important. I nonetheless wish also to emphasise that this agreement entails significant changes, such as we had not really anticipated, to the whole debate on future agricultural policy.
A few words now on the mid-term review. There is an obvious need for reform of agricultural policy for reasons to do with the budget, justice and the environment, for other reasons – into which I shall not go into detail here – and for reasons linked to the results from Doha and concerned with helping world trade function better and making it easier for poor countries to develop their economies. It is hugely important that these reforms should work. It is therefore essential that it be possible to implement the Commission’s proposals for decoupling and for better adapting agricultural policy to the market. It is also essential to be able to implement modulation, that is to say a larger investment in the environment and countryside, and to gather in a little money from the direct contributions.
A few words now about Parliament’s resolution. We have arrived at a compromise that, in the main, supports the Commission’s proposal. I think it extremely valuable that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development should have succeeded in this, in spite of our having had quite different views from the beginning. There are nonetheless a few points that will have to be voted on separately. I am, for example, able to state on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party that we cannot support changing the interinstitutional agreement with a view to using the budget ceiling of 1.27% of GDP. That is completely impossible. We must vote against these points we cannot support, and I hope that they do not go through, either.
In order to be able to continue the debate on a constructive change to agricultural policy in the long term, it is important, however, for the proposal put forward by the Commission in its mid-term review to be able to get off the ground. I should like to ask both the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council what they intend to do to keep the debate going now that it is significantly harder to discuss modulation, that we do not know where we are to obtain the money from and that it is considerably more difficult to justify a decoupling of direct payments. What action are we to take in order to get all this to work and obtain a constructive debate on future agricultural policy?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples