Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-21-Speech-5-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000121.2.5-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group can do no other than express their agreement with the intentions of a proposal for a regulation which aims at strengthening dialogue with workers in the fishing sector. We must say, however, at the same time, that some of the methods used to organise this dialogue have confused us considerably.
First of all, the necessary strengthening of dialogue. The common fisheries policy is applicable to all European Union operators, but it must deal with a wide range of situations, with variations in fishing grounds, the home ports of vessels, traditions, the gear used, organisation of the market at local level, etc. This is true to such an extent, indeed, that some thinkers have wondered whether well-coordinated national policies would not be preferable to a single common policy. Whatever the case, since today there is just one policy in force and the situations of fishing sector workers are so varied, it is all the more important to establish very close liaison with them in order to better take their needs into consideration and to overcome the harmful effects of some regulations, or even avoid the failure, pure and simple, to implement this regulation, a phenomenon occasionally observed, unfortunately, due to the regulation’s total lack of regard for real conditions.
This is why the members of our Group will be voting in favour of the three amendments tabled today, whose purpose is to improve the operation of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, to bring it closer to the workers of the sector and to the requirements of national states, and finally to request that the Commission presents an annual report to Council and to the European Parliament on the debates of that body. The fact is that all the Community institutions, not just the Commission, have an interest in this debate in order to be able to contribute to orientation of the common fisheries policy in line, naturally, with the interests of our fishing fleets.
All the same, we find some aspects of the reform extremely disturbing, as the Commission is introducing a wide range of pressure groups into the Advisory Committee, generally groups with connections in Brussels, which are dedicated to extremely noble causes – development, environment, consumer issues, etc. And at the same time, alongside the fishermen, using Community financing, the Commission would like to increase the importance of European professional bodies which, for the time being, exist only on paper. It looks as if the Commission is seeking to import masses of miscellaneous participants to provide a counterbalance to the national bodies which are themselves properly structured, well established and truly representative. It is as if the Commission were trying to get out of a discussion with some negotiators that are hard to handle and to create a completely new conciliation structure that would be more kindly disposed towards the Commission, and which would reflect its own pleasant image of itself and its plans, and that is exactly what it expects.
On an even more worrying note, in the end one wonders how many other sectors have already been organised in this way and whether a vast network of associations or organisations with no truly representative nature, financed chiefly by Community subsidies and participating in largely artificial consultation, has not already been constructed in Brussels. The case we are examining today leads us to think that this hypothesis may well be the correct one. In such conditions, the Brussels institutions should not be surprised to find themselves losing touch with public opinion. Member States would do well to take this matter seriously if they do not shortly wish to see the national democracies they represent ousted by insubstantial pressure groups.
As regards the sector which is of immediate concern to us, the fisheries sector, we consider it absolutely essential to ensure that the various members of the Advisory Committee are truly representative. All the Member States involved in fishing activities must be represented, as must the workers involved in those activities. These are the parties we should be relying on, not artificial organisations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples