Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.33.2-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Following the Council’s offer to the Member States of the option of voluntarily modulating 20 per cent of the agricultural direct payments from the first to the second pillar, this was incorporated into the Commission’s proposal and will, without doubt, have cuts in agricultural subsidies as a consequence. The Council, Parliament and the Commission had, in the Financial Perspective, agreed to review the EU’s expenditure on – among other things – the common agricultural policy, but not before 2013. Our farmers need the security to plan ahead if they are to remain competitive, and so it is now that we must ensure that the money set aside for the agricultural budget until 2013 remains unchanged, and that those funds will indeed be spent on agricultural activity. It is unacceptable that farming families should, through compensation payments, get better financial support in one Member State than in another. The object of European agricultural policy is to secure European farmers comparable economic conditions in a single market. Since the Commission’s proposal was not preceded by an impact assessment that might have brought to light any unequal treatment, it is impossible for Parliament to endorse it.
I voted ‘no’ in the hope of making the farmers’ demands felt."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples