Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021118.7.1-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, we make this subject sound very complicated but for me it boils down to two questions: how much fish can we take, and who can take them? If we could agree on those two questions, we would have an amicable solution to all the other questions that arise.
I do not agree with those who say that the common fisheries policy is responsible for the present state of stocks. The reason the stocks are in their present state is because the scientists were not heeded. When the Commission took the scientists' message to the Council of Ministers it was not heeded and its advice was not put into effect. I do not agree with the present policy, but within its framework stocks could have been conserved if the advice of the Commission had been taken through the years.
The other problem with the common fisheries policy is that on the one hand the Commission has the responsibility but can merely give advice. The Council of Ministers and the individual states are the people with the ultimate responsibility. There is a lot of evidence that in the past they did not discharge their responsibility, without fear or favour, in a manner which ensured that every fisherman took what he was entitled to take and every ship got its quota and no more.
The common fisheries policy goes too far. There was never any need to take fish into common ownership. It does not make sense. We have a common agricultural policy. It does not give me the right or an Irish farmer the right to pick grapes or olives in the south of Spain. It does not give us the right to harvest forests in Finland or Sweden. Neither should the common fisheries policy include the common ownership of stocks. It makes no sense. As far as I know, nevertheless, there is only one country which loses out and gets less than its natural share. You will not find a more convinced European integrationist than I am, so I can say that there is one region in the Union, the west of Ireland, that does not get its natural share. I have no special quarrel with the Spanish, French or British fishermen who come into what are natural waters. However, in other areas – oil and minerals – and in every form of jurisdiction Member States have over their oceans, natural resources fall within the remit of the national governments. That should also apply to fish. It would make a lot more sense."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples