Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-017"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Support schemes for farmers under the CAP - Modifications to the common agricultural policy - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - Community strategic guidelines for rural development (2007 to 2013) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081118.4.2-017"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-11-18-Speech-2-0182
lpv:speaker	lp:Lutz Goepel2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2007-11-28--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ECON (2007-01-31--2008-12-01)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, goodness knows that two minutes is very little time in which to deal with one year’s conscientious work on this health check. There are just a few points I would like to make. To remind you: in November 2007, the Commission indicated 8% modulation plus 45% degression. A figure of 4% progressive modulation, that is to say modulation depending on farm size in the Goepel report, was indicated. We then heard 8% basic modulation and 9% progressive modulation for a total of 17% as an offer proposed by the Commission and we have recently reached a figure of 5% during voting in committee. It was important to us that all modulation resources should remain in the region and should be used, irrespective of the size of the farm or its legal form. Commissioner, you called for more flexibility for the Member States during the system changeover. This would mean more opportunities to introduce further decoupling and a move away from historical reference values. In principle I agree with this. Debates within the committee have shown that this is not advisable in all areas, as should be remembered in relation to the area of crops in particular as we move away from smaller market organisations. New challenges and increasing global mobility in the markets require new, flexible mechanisms. In the dairy sector, we have also succeeded in redefining Article 68 so as to support disadvantaged regions. Finally we come to milk, the most complicated matter in this evaluation. Because it is so complicated, I would have preferred us to have dealt with this complex of dairy-related issues with options and complementary measures as a complex report when quotas are abolished in 2010 or 2011. However, the milk fund is sizable and will provide additional support to dairy farmers, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The promotion of investments for dairy farmers without a tied quota throughout the EU should not be scoffed at, as it would reduce the purchasing pressure experienced by businesses. I have one last personal point: I would like to thank my team for their success in bringing this package to a conclusion by the end of my active period as a Member of Parliament under the French Presidency."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph