Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.3.4-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am against the proposal that has been made.
This is firstly because the Cunha report has been approved by a majority in the Committee on Fisheries. And not only that; the philosophy of this report is the one maintained by this Parliament in successive reports on the evaluation of the MAGPs.
In response to Mr MacCormick’s specific question, on whether paragraph 6 undercuts, or not, the principle of relative stability, I would point out that paragraph 6 in no way undercuts that principle. It simply proposes, as a possible penalty against those who fail to comply with the MAGPs, who are the people who do most harm to resources, a temporary suspension of quotas, which is not a definitive suspension, nor does it imply the transfer of quotas from some Member States to others.
In short, the principle of relative stability is maintained as are – and this frightens some people – the key points on distribution of the principle of relative stability. Therefore, I would like to tell you that there is not the slightest danger of that principle, the sacred principle of the common fisheries policy, being attacked. It simply proposes serious penalties – and because they hurt a lot, some people will complain – which should make the protection of resources more effective.
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples