Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-057"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agricultural incomes in the EU2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040210.3.2-057"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-10-Speech-2-0582
lpv:speaker	lp:Albert Jan Maat2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; AGRI (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Garot on his report. He is one of the Members of this House whom I hold in very high esteem. However, if I read his report, my criticism in this case is that the Socialist dimension is far too prevailing. Too much attention has been paid to the premiums while too little consideration has been given to the competitiveness of agriculture and horticulture. It is generally the case that the European debate on incomes in agriculture is too much dominated by the question as to the level of premiums rather than what the market problems are. Starting with the premiums, the Netherlands receives far too small a share of the European budget. The Netherlands accounts for 7% of agricultural production in the European Union, yet only receives 2.1% of the agricultural budget and 1% of the rural development budget. This is out of all proportion. Of course, there is a reason for this. The negotiations in Berlin in 1999 were conducted by Mr Kok and Mr Zalm, neither of whom had any affinity with agriculture and horticulture. That is not only the reason why the Dutch countryside does not receive what it is entitled to; it is also the real reason why the Dutch net contribution to the European Union is so high. This excessive contribution is best remedied by giving the Netherlands a substantially higher amount for agriculture and rural development. There is also another point that is given too little consideration in the development of agricultural incomes, namely the position of the so-called free products. The high European requirements in terms of environment, food safety and animal welfare have a knock-on effect on the cost price of – for example – meat, vegetables and potatoes, and put European agriculture at a worldwide disadvantage in terms of cost price. That is the real reason underlying a number of crises, including the current one in pig farming. My proposal is that in the case of new European legislative proposals affecting agriculture and horticulture, an income assessment should be done in order to check the true repercussions of this legislation on the workers in the fields."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph