Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-241"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-31"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EC-Denmark/Greenland fisheries agreement2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040331.9.3-241"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-31-Speech-3-2422
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Varela Suanzes-carpegna2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on improving safety at sea (2003-11-20--2004-04-21)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I regret to have to begin my speech on this occasion without being able to congratulate the rapporteur on her report. The Miguélez Ramos report, in the form it is being presented to plenary today, is worse than the Commission’s proposal. This is why we voted against it in committee, as did the rapporteur herself. I sincerely believe that the Commission’s proposal was good and sufficient, and I believe that it should have been accepted by a majority in the Committee on Fisheries, in which case it would not have been necessary to present amendments to Article 3, since, for the first time, the Commission was responding to a long battle by the PPE-DE Group in this European Parliament and by the Spanish Government for the same criteria to be applied to the Fisheries Agreement with Greenland as to the ‘southern agreements’ and for there not to be fishing opportunities paid for but not used, thereby allowing the Commission directly to re-allocate these unused fishing opportunities to other Member States which request it. Mr Vitorino, I would ask you to communicate to Commissioner Fischler that he should go ahead with his proposal, because it is reasonable, fair, equitable and in accordance with the principles of good governance, which the Court of Auditors called for so strongly, favouring the mutual interests of Greenland and the European Union, and, above all, it is a Europeanist proposal, since it protects the common European interest, unlike the current Miguélez Ramos report, which is anti-Community, since it prevents the Commission from directly defending the common interest of all the Member States in re-allocating unused quotas and obliges it to give in to the desire of certain States which do not use those quotas to negotiate bilaterally. We therefore believe the report to be a step backwards and we will vote against it again if the new Amendment No 5 is not adopted, since it is better than the Amendment No 2 which appears in the current Miguélez Ramos report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph