Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-14-Speech-2-376-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-02-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agreement between the EU and Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products and fishery products (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120214.20.2-376-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-02-14-Speech-2-377-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Raül Romeva i Rueda2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2012-02-13--2014-06-30)3,3 unknown; Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2013-04-17)3,3 member; PECH (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 vice-chair; G/EFA (2012-02-01--2013-03-20)3,3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 member; FEMM (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as rapporteur for the opinion for the Committee on Fisheries, I actually should have spoken earlier. I wrote that opinion. I suggested in the opinion that we should follow Mr Bové’s opinion and therefore reject the agreement. However, when we voted, the Committee on Fisheries failed to approve my recommendation by two votes. It approved a vote in favour of the agreement, and that is why I had to remove my name from the opinion. I think and hope that some Members who voted against on that occasion – and I am looking at Mr Mato – will tomorrow do otherwise. This would be very welcome, let me say again, for many of the reasons given by Mr Bové, which I should like to echo and summarise. The first and fundamental one: we have worked hard politically, but also legally, to ensure that this agreement explicitly excludes the territories of Western Sahara. Other agreements, for example the one with the United States, already do this, so this would not be inventing anything new. It is possible. For this reason alone, this means we already have an underlying problem if we support this agreement. Beyond this, however, and I repeat, this is not the only reason, we believe that this agreement should be renegotiated to reflect sustainable economic and social development needs, in order to promote regional integration. We also call on the Commission to adopt a strategy that takes into account the challenges of the Arab Spring. We believe that this is also fundamental. The agreement should also, however, promote regional integration and help to strengthen the democratic political sphere. I am not sure that it does. It should also focus on protecting the environment, resources, decent pay for farmers and sustainable jobs. It is not clear that it does this, either. Lastly, I believe that the surplus production being sent for export should not lead to any increase in child labour in the agricultural sector, which, unfortunately, is what is happening at present."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph