Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.8.2-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I was extraordinarily pleased to hear what Mrs Ramos and Commissioner Fischler had to say on this subject, which has been occupying us for such a long time. It is my belief that we are now very, very close to a very, very good solution, and it is not all that often, in the area of fisheries, that we can speak in terms of an historic moment, as Commissioner Fischler has just done, but, for the first time since the fisheries agreement with Greenland was concluded in 1985, unused catch quotas have been transferred. As we have just heard, this happened a few weeks ago and explicitly refers to 2003; I am talking about 2003! One of the core demands formulated in Mrs Miguélez Ramos’ report has thus been met.
I am sure, however, that this is where the Commission would like someone to stand up for them, and that I am willing to do. We are told that they had earlier not proposed a transfer. That is indeed so, but the implementation of such a measure is quite simply not in their capacities. The authority to do so resides simply and solely with the quota holder, and there is no transfer if they do not want there to be one. This transfer of quotas on a voluntary basis, now approved for the first time, is an impressive demonstration of my country’s willingness to resolve the issue of quotas that have not been fully used up, and to do so finally, but in a spirit of partnership.
Contrary to what I have often heard said in recent months, Germany has not been engaged in egocentrically stonewalling European policy on these matters; on the contrary, we are backing the European Community. Let me point out, though, that this regulation will not work without effort. I warn against interfering with the principles of European fisheries policy. This rapprochement must not be allowed to erode the principle of relative stability. I believe that we should have further serious discussions about this. So let me repeat that today’s arrangement applies to 2003 and constitutes no kind of guarantee to other Member States that they will receive quotas that were – to take an example – formerly Germany’s, as Germany will in future be backing a fleet that will fish around Greenland. I would like to follow this positive aspect by mentioning another weak point. What we are dealing with here is what we term the mid-term review of the protocol, as agreed in the protocol itself. Having been a rapporteur on the subject, I still remember it very well. I wonder, though, what effect Parliament’s present opinion will have in future, as we know that amendments were agreed on as long ago as the end of June. Have we been asked about them? Will we, in future, be allowed only to nod them through as we did in the past, or will we be permitted to express appropriate outrage? I am thinking not least of the effects of the fisheries agreement on the Budget, about which we have just again heard, when I emphatically demand – not only here and now, but also tomorrow – that Parliament be involved in the negotiating process. We will end up having to amend the relevant treaties if that is to happen. As a matter of principle, I regard anything else as an excuse!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples