Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-14-Speech-1-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051114.16.1-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the 2001 agreement with the United States and the Latin American countries, to which the Commissioner referred earlier, and which we thought could put an end to the banana war, now brings with it a radical change to the Community import regime from January 2006, a change that the European sector will have to face in a situation of great uncertainty.
In 1993, the Union decided to establish its own import regime and a common organisation of the market for bananas that is completely different to the common organisation of the market that governs the rest of the fruit and vegetable sector. The Union therefore gave the banana sector special treatment, almost favourable treatment, and this is even more justified today, because this fruit is only grown in the European Union’s outermost regions.
I would remind you that, because of their island and outlying status, these regions are treated differently, and this is necessary, above all, if we want to continue to maintain their agricultural activity. Given that my government, the Spanish Government, has forgotten this – as has the Government of the Canary Islands it would appear – I will point out that bananas play an essential economic and social role and the new import regime could jeopardise the survival of Community production if the European Union does not have sufficient funds in the future to compensate for a drastic reduction in prices as a result of the possible establishment of too low a border tariff.
The essence of the problem is ultimately an accounting adjustment on which the future of the banana sector in the European Union depends. The lower the tariff, the greater the financial effort required to compensate European producers will be. But that effort has a maximum limit and that maximum limit should determine the European Union’s room for manoeuvre in terms of giving in to international pressures in international negotiations.
The Union has already sacrificed a significant proportion of its agricultural production for the sake of opening up to international trade, a sacrifice which unfortunately always impacts on the same people, on the producers, and which benefits just a few, in a very small number of third countries.
In the case of bananas, moreover, the big multinationals would benefit, while local producers will hardly notice the change."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples