Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-238"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040331.9.3-238"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the agreement with Greenland is important in several respects. We have been told that it is and we can only agree.
Firstly, as regards catches and financial compensation it is one of the EU’s most important fisheries agreements ever. Secondly, it is an excellent example of sustainability and balance in the waters of the North Atlantic. Improvements have definitely been made. Thirdly, it is also an expression of the special relationship between the former EC member Greenland and the Union. I am not of course telling you anything new when I say that the European fisheries policy is a genuine Community policy, with all that entails. There are Community legal bases and principles that are binding. These include, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, the principle of relative stability which was confirmed only recently as part of the large-scale common fisheries policy reform. I find it highly questionable and unhelpful to be seeking an amendment by the back door, as I see it, and to give way to sectional interests as seems to be the manifest intention of many here in this House on the Greenland question.
The EU fishing nations that are party to the Greenland agreement have committed themselves to sustainable and responsible fishing. Otherwise, this agreement would never have come about. They have been given quotas which they can use themselves and which they can exchange. That cannot be changed. We cannot now withdraw those quotas with coercive measures that impinge upon the Member States’ substantive rights. Just imagine if a football team does not use its possibilities for substitution and for that reason is not allowed any substitutes in the next game but is allowed to field a team with twice the number of players. In a word, it is absurd. It cannot be justified by talking about supposedly economic and fair grounds. We do not need imposed redistribution; what we need is partnership and cooperation. Everyone involved has repeatedly assured us that they want to make the best possible use of quotas, and we believe them. As we have seen, Germany, where I come from, has been exemplary in its cooperation in the past few years – I am pleased to be able to say that – and has transferred parts of its quotas for stocks that are in good condition to other Member States. That is the way to have a sustainable fisheries policy.
For the future I am in favour of closer cooperation over quotas; that is something I can concede, but the Member States’ and Commission’s powers must be preserved. I also fully support an improved procedure for consultation between Member States over the exchange of quotas from agreements with third countries. I also ask my fellow Members to support that."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples