Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-27-Speech-5-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001027.1.5-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the absence of Mr Fischler, which is justified, as the chair of the Committee on Fisheries made clear earlier, prevents me from going into too much detail. However, I would like to convey a few brief messages to the Commission, which is worthily represented today by Commissioner Busquin.
The first message is the Commission’s inability to renew the most important fisheries agreement that the European Union had. I believe that this fact should be noted and made clear and doubts raised as to whether the Commission is capable of negotiating international agreements, especially having heard President Prodi request an international remit for the Commission.
Secondly, I am concerned about Mr Busquin’s comment regarding support for developing the fishing capacity of Morocco. We are talking about a territory that does not belong to Morocco, but that is being administrated by Morocco. If we help Morocco to over-exploit this territory, which is awaiting a UN-supervised referendum, if we develop a Moroccan fishing fleet to exploit the fish in this territory, what will happen when this territory becomes self-governing and what will we do with the Moroccan fleet?
Thirdly, since the fisheries agreement came to an end, Community and non-Community fleets that are not subject to the control of either the Commission or the Member States have continued to exploit the Saharan fishing grounds, in particular a substantial Dutch fleet. What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent at least the Community fleets from continuing to over-exploit these resources?
Fourthly, as Mrs Miguélez emphasised, when the previous fisheries agreements were signed, the European Union made significant concessions to Morocco on all points. Last year, Morocco withdrew from the negotiating table and, like a good player who has won, ended up with all the cards and did not forfeit a single concession. Is the European Union going to continue making concessions, if Morocco does not show the slightest desire to relieve the situation?
And finally, the Commissioner has spoken of the Commission’s measures to help the fisheries sector directly affected. But the fisheries sector is only part of the activity generated by fishing. At the moment, various Spanish regions, the Canaries, Andalusia and Galicia, and some Portuguese regions, are directly affected by the cessation of fishing activities. This means the end of shore-based activities, boat repairs, the provisioning of vessels, canning factories and oil factories, which is to say that a whole economic sector is currently paralysed as a result of this.
My question to the Commission is this: if an agreement is not reached with Morocco, or if this agreement is concluded under the terms indicated by the Commission, an agreement that stimulates Moroccan production, is the Commission planning to adopt structural measures to compensate for the losses that will occur in the regions affected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples