Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-330"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.25.3-330"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We think of sole and plaice as extremely good fish that are a great pleasure to eat, but future generations will not experience that pleasure if we do not now accept our responsibilities. I think that Mr Maat’s report is, for the most part, sound, but I would criticise precisely the same things as the Commissioner. Amendment 8 about having a three-year quota would have precisely those implications pointed out by Mr Davies. It could not be adapted in time and would be inappropriate. The same applies in the case of cod. There is a connection here, which means that Amendment 14 cannot be approved either. If the number of days at sea is to be limited for the reason stated, the restriction will have to apply to these vessels too, as there cannot be exceptions where this matter is concerned. When it comes to Amendment 15, involving a ten per cent, instead of eight per cent, margin of tolerance, I would point out that, with modern computer technology, there would be no complications in having an eight per cent margin. We could manage to calculate eight per cent instead of ten per cent. Increased flexibility would damage stocks. The same applies to Amendment 20. Increased flexibility for the Member States in determining when they need to take measures would not work. Attempts to obtain increased flexibility would actually lead to reduced flexibility, as, if fish stocks are depleted, there is no flexibility at all left. There would then be no fishing quotas, no days at sea and 100% unemployment among professional fishermen. That, presumably, is what no one wants to see."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples