Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.4.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, well-intentioned initiatives can sometimes have the wrong consequences. This week, the FAO has written to this House to say that, firstly, we were mentioned seven times in the Commission’s proposal, about which it itself was not consulted even once. Secondly, it informs us that no governments are currently asking for European boats, and, thirdly, that the vessels and the industrial fish sector on the Atlantic coast are in every respect different from the traditional canoes and catamarans of Sri Lanka and India. A fourth point is that local boatyards must do the repair work, for that is what they are good at, and that provides the people there with money, work and the wherewithal to earn a living. Our money would buy something like 2500 boats in place of the 200 referred to here. Fifthly, we must prevent our vessels from further interfering in the already gravely ravaged fishing grounds and local fishing communities.
The only conclusion to be drawn from this is: help the local fishermen in the boatyards, but do not send ships, or else, no matter how good our intentions, we will be inflicting another tsunami on the coasts of Asia. I am disappointed that the Commission is willing to accept only 3 of this House’s 22 amendments, which, let me add, I was happy to support. All this, along with the FAO letter and the reports from the NGOs on the ground, leads me to vote against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples