Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.11.4-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you very sincerely, Mr Pesälä, for your report. So what is this all about? The proposal is to transfer to the Commission the power to amend the list of processed products containing milk products which are eligible for refunds. As the rapporteur has already explained, the Commission already has this power for cereals, sugar, rice and eggs. Planned total expenditure for export refunds for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty have been reduced from EUR 610 million in budget year 1999 to EUR 551 million in budget year 2000. Why? This year, for the last time, we can exceed the WTO upper limit of EUR 475 million by the amounts not used in 1999. In the next GATT year, total permissible expenditure will be limited to EUR 415 million by the WTO system, and it will no longer be possible to carry amounts forward.
Let us compare: last year we had EUR 610 million, and next year will only be able to spend EUR 415 million. We believe that it would have been unwise to make this enormous change from 600 to 400 in one go. So we have introduced an interim stage this year. Our WTO commitments and budgetary discipline mean that we have to adopt a selective approach. That means that we can no longer grant export refunds for products where this is not essential to maintain their competitiveness. And that, Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, is exactly what you were asking about. We want to be in a position to adjust the list in accordance with destinations and sales opportunities, so that in future we can use the maximum permissible amount of budget appropriations to export a maximum volume of milk products.
You gave yoghurt as an example, and it is a good one, as it demonstrates how illogical a system can be. At present, the situation is that if any sweeteners or other additives are added to a yoghurt, it is not covered by Annex I to the Treaty. If it is a pure natural yoghurt, that is made from milk and nothing else, then it is a milk product and it is not classified as a good not covered by Annex I to the Treaty. So we have not been paying export refunds any more for natural yoghurt for years, but we still have to grant them for flavoured yoghurts. Is that logical?
Surely you can see that. We really are not in the business of putting the thumbscrews on agriculture; this is about being able to react appropriately to short-term market requirements. So this proposal will, in future, make it possible for the Commission to adapt the list of goods eligible for export refunds swiftly, but the Member States will be involved as it will come under the management committee procedure. In conclusion, I would like to say that I find it discriminatory if milk only cheers up tired chaps. Why not ‘weary women’ as well?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples