Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-194"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Reform of the common agricultural policy2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030603.6.2-194"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-03-Speech-2-1952
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Mulder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I too should like to thank all the rapporteurs. With regard to decoupling, I also support the Commission proposals to a large extent, but there are exceptions to every rule, of which I should like to mention two. It should not be the case that agricultural products such as vegetables, fruit, flowers, and so on, which were not subsidised in the past, should now be subsidised indirectly. In my view, an exception should therefore be provided for in the regulation. The second exception should apply to potato starch. To my mind, the 50% decoupling, as proposed by the Commission, is not sufficient and should remain at 75% in order to avoid as unacceptable social consequences. I too am in favour of making the payment of premiums dependent on the observance of environmental requirements, but what are these? They are very vague. If every Member State were to observe the nitrate directive, agricultural policy would become very simple, but, as thirteen of the fifteen Member States do not observe the environmental requirements, we should prescribe clearer parameters. I would like to make a third remark with regard to the budget in general. I do not know what the costs are of the reports on which we are about to vote, but the current proposals mean that the budget is already extremely tight as it is. What will the Commission do when reform proposals are tabled for sugar, for vegetables and fruit, for olive oil and for tobacco? Can we then look forward to other reductions, other degression standards? This is the question I should like to put to the Commission."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph