Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-10-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050310.3.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, allow me to chip in with my own, somewhat different angle. I disagree with the gist of the resolution, and in principle, I support the Commission proposals, beginning with what it says about C-dumping and C sugar. Dumping does indeed cost us EUR 800 million per annum, and is completely at odds with what is supposed to be done according to the world trade agreements. We will be forced to stop this practice without delay and we should not think that we could eke it out for a few years. The Commission proposal still maintains a world price, or market price in Europe, which is double – or, nowadays, three times – the world price. Those who argue in favour of wholesale liberalisation and contend that everything should be freed up, have not, in my view, read the Commission proposal properly.
I consider the proposal to be sensible, although there is room for improvement on a number of points. I would particularly refer to the action plan for the poor countries. It is, of course, true that a number of those countries must invest in industries in order to become more competitive. I do not think it is realistic for the money for this to come from the European Development Fund. This is where the funds that we ourselves save in this sector of agriculture could be used, not only for the European agricultural sector, but also for the ACP countries.
I would also like to say a few words about the quotas. Trade is, of course, the best way of helping countries. At present, the least-developed countries can increase their levels from 120 000 tonnes to 209 000 tonnes. What is stopping us from doubling this 1% of the European market? That would be an excellent compensation for the countries involved for the period up to 2009, and it could really mean that they have an income.
Commissioner, you were right in saying that we should steer clear of ‘Everything but Arms’. Let this Parliament not bring shame on itself by turning this soon into ‘Everything but Arms and sugar’. That would take the cornerstone out of a fair world trade policy and it would mean that we would promptly fail at Doha. That should not happen. I wholeheartedly support the proposals, and I hope that you want to improve and strengthen them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples