Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.5.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall take up where the Commissioner left off; in any EU country, if a minister writes, on the very day that a decision is taken, a letter such as the one the Vice-President of the Commission sent to the Commissioner, without going to the Council, there would be a governmental crisis, and the Prime Minister or President would have to dismiss one or both or these. This is traditional practice in a democracy.
I shall take advantage of this occasion to say, Mr President, after listening to the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries of this Parliament, that I have very little confidence in his neutrality when it comes to carrying out an impartial investigation, after what he has said, because the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries has to represent Parliament’s interests as a whole, and not make his own calculations on what could concern one country or another.
If you will allow me, Mr President, I should like to say that we are facing a problem with regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy, but there is also a constitutional problem apparent: in the Council, a President-in-Office of the Council saying that he gives instructions to the Commission; in the Commission, a very clear, public and well-known division, which we found out about from the press. The Commission made the decision yesterday without appearing before Parliament, yet revealed all to the press. The only way we have of finding out about such matters is by buying newspapers.
Mr President, I am going to ask just one question of the Commissioner, based on the fact that Parliament has an enormous responsibility in trying to defend the interests of all Europeans, starting with fishermen.
We feel that this report does not discuss economic and social cohesion; it does not talk about the social fabric in coastal areas, which are also European; it does not talk about sustainable development; it does not include aquiculture, and does not talk about consumers, who also have rights, and furthermore, we all agree with doctors when they tell us that, to improve our diet, we need to eat more fish.
Therefore, Mr President, the only question I would like to ask the Commissioner is the following: why not apply all those principles he claims to defend in the reform of the common agricultural policy to the reform of fisheries? If we say that this is multi-dimensional, that it has to defend citizens, the landscape, the culture and all those aspects that shape European life, why should this be defended in agriculture but not in fisheries?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples