Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-108"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030312.2.3-108"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-12-Speech-3-1092
lpv:speaker	lp:Dominique F.C. Souchet2
lpv:spokenAs	member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-11-18--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Once again, fishermen disagree with the Commission. The Commission seems to be using cod as a guinea pig to test the new tool that it has managed to impose on the Council as part of its regeneration plans for endangered species: limiting fishing. The use of this tool is, of course, likely to be extended: there is already talk about hake and sole in the Bay of Biscay. The Commission’s proposal on cod is based, as ever, on the most recent opinions of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is made up of several partners outside Europe and which has taken up many controversial positions in the past. It is indisputable that some stocks of cod are, in many areas, in a vulnerable situation. However, by holding fishing solely responsible for that situation, the Commission risks condemning fishermen without replenishing the resources. The reason that we are abstaining on the Stevenson resolution is solely because it advocates applying codecision to the CFP, which, in our opinion, does not need further uncertainty and unpredictability. Apart from this, we do, of course, support this resolution."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph