Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the amendments voted on in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – something like eight hundred of them – have made plain how controversial the Commission’s proposals on the future of the common agricultural policy for Europe are. The spectrum extends from outright rejection to qualified approval. Despite that, we have managed to draw up a compromise that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development was able to adopt; this entailed a feat of strength the like of which has never before been seen, although it must be conceded that this was done under great pressure of time. This compromise represents, as a German weekly periodical puts it, a respectable staging-post on the road to an agricultural policy that will take us up to 2013.
The imminent WTO negotiations, the soon-to-be-accomplished enlargement of the EU, and a mandate to review Agenda 2000 – these were the constraints upon the Commission when, in January 2003 and at the Council’s behest, it presented Parliament with its proposals for its consideration. If it is the case that, in the reports now being put to the vote in this House, much has been toned down, much added, and a certain amount rejected as currently impracticable, then that has, in the final analysis, happened under pressure from those who work in agriculture, whom it is our function to represent.
Many critics worked on the assumption that, just as opposing views on the proposals were to be found in the Council, it would not be possible, at the present time, for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to come up with a workable solution. It may be that the Council had been covertly hoping that Parliament – because it was unable to do so or, above all, because of pressure of time – would not come to any decision, so that it would be this House, rather than the Council, that would be able to put the brakes on an agricultural reform that is much needed. I can tell the Ministers of Agriculture that they are way off the mark. Whatever the result of Thursday’s vote may be, it will not be binding, as agriculture is still not yet subject to codecision, a situation which, it is to be hoped, will soon change. The result of this vote will, however, send a signal and impose on you, the Council, who are supposed to take final decisions, the duty of finding your own compromises before this Presidency’s time is up. We in Parliament have done our homework, and, speaking on behalf of my group, I can only recommend to the Council that it act in accordance with this House’s balanced proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples