Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.13.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we have heard tonight about how the Commission has actually changed its position in relation to developing a new system of fisheries agreements. It is all very well just changing the name of 'fisheries agreements' to 'partnership agreements', which sounds very good. 'Partnership' sounds like something that is fair and equitable, but, at the end of the day, what we need to see is that this is what actually happens.
At the moment we are only talking about discussion documents from the Commission and when I hear some of the other speakers talking about trade diplomacy, we have to be very careful that this is not about coercion. When we talk about fisheries agreements, looking at Mr Cunha's report and comparing it with one we may have seen five or six years ago in this Parliament, it is better. However, if you look at the underlying majority view of the Committee on Fisheries and, indeed, of this Parliament, it is that the purpose of agreements is to supply European consumers with fish and to keep European fishermen in work. Any other consideration is secondary. This is not acceptable. We cannot talk about sustainability and development as two separate items.
As regards exporting our problem in relation to overcapacity within the European Union, this has been the tradition up until now: fisheries agreements have been used to export our excess capacity to other parts of the world. When we talk about the countries that are benefiting, I know that when I first came to this Parliament, Ireland was not one of these countries. It clearly is now. Irrespective of what countries are benefiting from within the European Union, what we need to look at is how the developing countries are actually benefiting. I do not see anything yet to prove that the European Union has not merely a sustainable approach to fisheries agreements, but also an approach that takes into account the concerns of the developing countries.
We have an agreement at the moment that there will be a separation in relation to payments. This will distinguish the development aspect from the other aspects of the fisheries agreements. But that is not enough. We need to get proof from the Commission that this is what is going to happen, because it is completely unfair to talk about fair trade, an equitable approach to developing countries while at the same time using developing countries by exporting our capacity to those countries. We have to take that into account.
Finally, we have to take into account what happened with Morocco. Are our European taxpayers' monies going, in the future, to pay for the collapse of other fisheries agreements? I am talking in particular of Mauritania. This is something that needs to be taken into account. Developing countries are not going to take for granted the situation that has been put to them with the only choice they have. We have to live up to our responsibilities and cut down on our excess capacity."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples