Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.12.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when the Commission’s proposal landed on the table we rubbed our eyes a little in disbelief. ‘Active processing trade’ – what on earth does that mean? Once I had immersed myself more deeply in the subject, I was amazed to learn what this was all about. It had been clear up until now: industry buys products produced in the EU and is then given export refunds in order to be able to compete on the international market. Now the Commission is saying that there is no longer enough money, however, because we entered into a commitment in Marrakech and now we are going to have to rethink the situation. Then they have a brainwave to the effect that industry will no longer buy agricultural raw materials on the EU market but on the world market instead, which the EU, for its part, will export its raw materials onto, and in dumping its goods will also be partly responsible for world market prices. They think that industry will now be able to buy there, local products will stay where they are, and industry will then make refined products from the aforesaid local products and bring them onto the world market.
We were absolutely convinced at first that there was no chance of this working. Then we gave the issue every attention in committee, but the view I have just described to you is that of the Commission. Subsequently, we tried to discuss whether or not it would be possible to sell products produced within the EU at world market prices, as the chemical and pharmaceutical industries do, so that, at the very least, the products we sometimes have an abundance of – although we do not produce surpluses overall, there is an abundance of produce in certain sectors – could be reduced.
But no, they did not want to float this idea at the WTO negotiations. An apparently elegant solution was being proposed, which undermined the WTO negotiations somewhat. There is a passage in the explanatory statement of this regulation which states that the Community preferential arrangements must not be undermined, nor must there be disturbances to the European market. When I buy products elsewhere, which are available here in abundance, then of course I cannot assume that there will be no disruption to the market. It seems to be a compromise solution, and my group is unable to accept it in its present form.
I would like to offer my compliments to the rapporteur. Mr Souchet is someone who can always be relied upon to speak up for agricultural interests. His approach may, from time to time, be a little on the traditional side for my taste, but I am full of admiration for him. You have done your level best for rural farming in Europe, and that is the spirit in which we will vote for the proposed amendments that we put forward in committee. We endorse your report, but we intend to reject the legislative resolution.
We had to draw the line at this point, at the very least, because, overall, we do not think it is a balanced and reasonable solution, and on the whole, we feel, and fear, that if this mechanism is implemented, prices within the EU will come under direct pressure once again. We will lead the next discussion we have on prices and the next discussions we have about whether prices of our products within the EU are pitched too high. But what we in fact need to discuss, is whether the sale prices on the world market call for a price discussion, because no one in the world can produce goods in an environmentally and socially responsible manner under these conditions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples