Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-13-Speech-1-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061113.20.1-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, my report has received unanimous approval in this House’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. We considered additional aid for rural development in Portugal to be justifiable; although this was not, of course, ideal, it did form part of a package of measures nodded through by the Council in December, it was not something to which this House, during the negotiations on the financial perspectives, thought it necessary to make any changes. I should like to repeat, though, that it is not ideal and should remain an exception. We have to accept, after all, that something similar has been agreed on for various other countries as well.
I should now like – with your permission, Mr President – to turn to the Goepel report. With regard to the financial perspectives, which were subsequently approved by this House as a whole, the committee made it quite clear that Parliament has suspended its verdict with regard to voluntary modulation. It is therefore surprising that the Commission should come up with a proposal so promptly. It has, actually, only followed the Council's ‘orders’, for want of a better word.
I disagree with the Commissioner that there is no danger of a renationalisation of European agricultural policy; it is something I regard as a very dangerous trend. What matters most of all to the European farmer is the common market of soon to be 500 million consumers who we must try to retain as much as possible. In addition, as Mr Goepel has already indicated, it can hardly be said that there has been any examination of the policy’s effects. It may well be that around 2013, the average farmer in Europe, as a result of all manner of measures, will need to make do with one third less of what he received in 2004. Is that the reliable authority that the European Union wants to be? What are the consequences of this? Can farmers survive this measure in certain regions and suchlike? We have not received an analysis of it, and it would appear to me that the Commission has no choice, when the proposal is submitted, but to analyse its effects.
One of the most important prerogatives of this Parliament, upon which Mr Bösch will undoubtedly elaborate, is the right to enact the Budget. We have approved the financial perspectives, which contain precise figures, with so much being set aside for this, so much for that and, among others, so much for market measures in the framework of European agricultural policy and so much for rural policy. If voluntary modulation were to be implemented, it would have an impact on these figures. Does that not amount to a change to the financial perspectives? I do believe that it does. A change to the financial perspectives requires approval by the budgetary authority, that being the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council. I am not at all certain that Parliament will go along with this. That is why I will be voting against the Commission proposals on voluntary modulation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples