Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.4.3-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In the Garot report on trends in agricultural incomes in the European Union, the European Parliament is by implication beginning to complain about the future consequences of the Fischler reform, even though it agreed to it itself. It was in fact Parliament which, in order to please the Commission, assented to plunging agriculture into the world market, decoupling aid from production and aligning product prices downwards. Reading the Garot report, it is hard to believe that.
The Parliament is now realising that preserving farmers’ incomes and maintaining the presence of a healthy agriculture in all the countries of Europe require remunerative prices based on production costs and adequate external protection (paragraph 12).
We were more consistent when we rejected the Fischler reform, proposing at the ‘rebuilding an agricultural policy in Europe’ colloquium an agricultural model that was internally less subject to public intervention schemes, which, without export subsidies, was protected from the outside, so that remunerative domestic prices compatible with a sustainable management of nature would be set spontaneously. That is the only way to really safeguard Europe’s agricultural future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples