Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-13-Speech-1-184"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Support for rural development by the EAFRD – Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the CAP (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061113.20.1-184"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-13-Speech-1-1852
lpv:speaker	lp:Neil Parish2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Goepel and Mr Mulder for these reports. Commissioner, you know very well that your heart is not in this and that you are having to do the Council’s bidding. This is a complete mess. You have a lot of support here in Parliament. In fact, the Council has managed to unite the whole Parliament against this proposal. When we vote tomorrow we will reject it, it will go back to committee and we will reject it again. So I urge you to come forward with a new proposal. When I first came to the European Parliament, my farming friends told me the one thing they wanted out of Europe was a level playing field. That may be a forlorn hope, but this proposal makes it less level than it has ever been. I do not need to tell you, Commissioner, that the British Government is about to be fined for not meeting the deadline for the Single Farm Payment Scheme. So what do you do? When it cannot make the payments on time, you give it more rural development money to squander. You can imagine how much confidence farmers have in the Government to deliver that at the moment. As I look across the House tonight, it is interesting that there is not one member of the Labour Party on the Socialist benches. Who is here to defend Mr Blair’s proposal? No one. So look to us for help. As Mr Stevenson said, the government is putting enormous pressure on us to say that we are against environmental schemes. Can I put it clearly on record that we are not, and nor is the Commissioner. But we need to move forward with more money going from the first to the second pillar, all across Europe; a compulsory modulation on a level amount. Also, as other speakers have said, there has been no proper impact assessment of this proposal. It cannot possibly go forward. The cotton regime was scrapped after a ruling by the European Court of Justice. Please think again and come back with a new proposal."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2008-04-06)3 member; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-02-01--2007-06-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2007-02-14)3 chair; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2004-09-22--2007-02-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-28--2007-03-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-02-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Neil Parish (PPE-DE ). –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph