Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-05-Speech-4-113"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021205.3.4-113"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-05-Speech-4-1142
lpv:speaker	lp:Danielle Darras2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Should we do away with fishing altogether? If we follow the Commission’s unilateral approach to sustainable development, that will be the best solution to enable fish populations to recover. Of course, what the Commission says is undeniably true: there are simply not enough fisheries resources. Yet for all that the Commission’s solution is not mine, because it forgets the men and women, in other words it takes absolutely no account of the people who work in the industry and who earn their livelihood from fishing. An approach based on sustainable development should not only seek to preserve fish stocks, but should also seek to ensure, if possible, the survival of the fishing industry. The Commission’s solution is too brutal in envisaging a ‘rapid reconstitution’ of fish stocks rather than a reconstitution which, in the shortest possible time, would reduce to a minimum the socio-economic impact on fishermen and their families. The abolition of State aid for building new boats and for modernising the existing fleet is unacceptable. The amendments make positive changes to the Commission’s proposal, so that the socio-economic dimension of the fishing industry is no longer forgotten. I shall be voting in favour of the text thus amended."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph