Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.11.4-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by very sincerely thanking Mr Pesälä for his statement, but I must say straight away that the thrust of my comments is somewhat different.
We have a slogan in German which says ‘Milk cheers up tired chaps’. But you can also just say ‘Milk cheers you up’, because we now have some women in key positions in the Commission and that is why I would like to put on record my view that the Commission is now cheerfully planning to abolish export refunds for milk products too.
The Commission is empowered to delete goods eligible for export refunds under the COMs for cereals, sugar, rice and eggs, for example. In the case of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty the list has been amended in this way. My question is this: is the Commission now seeking
for other products? I know that the Member States have taken widely differing views of this, not least in Council meetings. Is this really what is intended for the entire milk sector?
I would be grateful if you could give me a couple of answers in a moment, when we consider whether this really is efficient. The Commission text indicates that additional administrative options are to be created, so as to facilitate more precise selection of those goods for which export refunds are to be granted.
Would the Commission not agree that in this context the expression ‘efficient use’ is rather euphemistic? What does ‘efficient’ mean in plain language? In this case, “efficient” quite simply means abolishing export refunds for milk products. In practice it means that, for example, no export refunds will be granted for the milk part of fruit yoghurt. So I would like to ask if there is not a danger that without the milk export refund component export refunds for yoghurt will be reduced. Do you have real calculations and reliable figures for this? What will the situation be then?
The rapporteur, Mr Pesälä, has, of course, already pointed out that this will also hit other products. There are also other export products, such as cakes and pastries, which contain milk components. So it sounds rather crazy to me if, on the one hand, we say that we must reduce costs while, on the other, it is possible, because more milk will remain on the market
that additional costs will have to be met for storage and so on.
As I see it, excess production in the milk sector is likely to get worse rather than improve, and this gradual increase in minimum market access and the simultaneous reduction in the maximum export refund are rather contradictory. I am sure that you will be able to explain this in your statement in a moment. I believe that in terms of market policy there is no urgent need for this, and I can therefore see no reason why I should happily vote for this procedure or why it should be in the interests of the people I represent. I think I might find it rather difficult to explain to the farmers at home.
So I would like to ask once more – is the abolition of these export refunds really unavoidable? Of course we agreed at the Berlin Summit that savings would have to be made, but surely in the right place. I am sure that you will be able to give us some answers in a moment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples