Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-036"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20020703.2.3-036"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President-in-Office, for the term of your presidency, you have decided to prioritise enlargement. I congratulate you on that, and we shall support you wholeheartedly. On the subject of that priority, let me ask you three questions. I am not necessarily pressing you for an immediate answer to the first question, because it is a tricky one, concerning the agricultural budget. As you know, if we sought uniform transposition of the rules of the common agricultural policy, the agricultural budget would probably be considerably increased, which nobody wants. As for reforming the CAP, we do not have the time to do that and, in any case, as you said, enlargement must not be delayed. Renationalising direct aid is appealing in some respects, but it is not an entirely satisfactory solution, because the poorest countries are precisely the ones that could least afford to assist their farmers. So is there not another avenue to explore, involving the use of a new form of Community preference that would serve both to maintain farmers’ incomes and to set very high quality standards? We recently noted an American plan which is fairly contentious but which could present us with an opportunity to call for a revision of the WTO rules, so that each country or area can plead the case for its own agricultural model? What do you think of this sort of idea with a target date of 2006? Secondly, with regard to illegal immigration, the previous presidency made the fight against illegal immigration one of its priorities. Your priority is enlargement. At the point where these two priorities meet, there is the problem of Turkey, a country which regards itself as a candidate for accession but at the same time is one of the nerve centres of illegal immigration into Europe. What do you intend to do about this situation? And thirdly, in your address you stated that another ‘no’ vote in Ireland would jeopardise the enlargement process. Are you absolutely sure of that, Mr President-in-Office? Would it not be possible to incorporate the relevant parts of the Treaty of Nice into the accession treaty and improve them in the process? From this perspective, would not an Irish ‘no’ actually represent something of an opportunity for Europe?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph