Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.3.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Seattle negotiations enabled us to see a small political opening up of the European Union’s positions on agriculture as is the case with environmental concerns, food safety and the development of rural communities. This is nevertheless very little when compared with the very negative aspects that our trade partners are trying to impose on us in the text of the Agenda. I am referring to two points in particular:
The first was an obsessive reference to the substantial reduction of internal aid for agriculture without taking the slightest account of the diversity of different countries’ structures of production and without taking account of an objective and consistent classification of the different types of subsidies allocated to agriculture.
Secondly, and most importantly, the rejection of the idea of multifunctionality which is the main pillar of the European farm model and the basis for upholding the principle of the specific nature of agriculture. In fact, if this deliberate reference is not featured, it means that agriculture will be treated as a normal economic activity, whilst there is ever greater pressure from our competitors to end any kind of aid obtained and I stress “any kind”.
Now we all know that without special treatment for agriculture we will not be able to guarantee a minimum of Community preference nor as a result, the primary producing role of agriculture. If the producing role of agriculture comes to an end, then all its other functions or multifunctions will end with it. This is why it was a good thing that no agreement was reached in Seattle. In fact, the agreement that was envisaged was very damaging for agriculture and would have left us at the outset in a weakened negotiating position for the future whereas we are now in a stronger position than we ever have been to make an offensive stand in the new Round.
I would like to make two final comments. Firstly, that it is crucial that the Commission and the Council establish an initiative with developing countries in order to make them our allies. Secondly, that a joint project with the United States would be extremely useful – as James Elles pointed out – in order to clarify the positions of both parties and to be able then to encourage future understanding."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples