Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-110"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:WTO agricultural trade negotiations2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030210.9.1-110"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-02-10-Speech-1-1112
lpv:speaker	lp:Christel Fiebiger2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, on 27 January, the Commission stated that the EU's proposal on the WTO negotiations was compatible with our current advocacy of substantial and progressive liberalisation on a fair and even-handed basis. It is furthermore stated in clear terms that ‘the actual measures involve the fair sharing of agricultural burdens and the developing countries, too, should be given greater opportunities.’ That is a logical development in view of the fact that, in the EU too since the 1992 CAP reform, liberalisation keeps making advances in the implementation of the GATT resolutions. The good ship WTO is steaming ahead, with undertakings in the agricultural and food industries swimming in its wake as best they can, as, every time the consumer spends a euro on groceries, the farmers get only an average of 25 cents. The liberalisation of agricultural trade has its advocates and its opponents. There is unanimous agreement that developing countries should be given easier access to the European Internal Market, yet, despite liberalisation – or, indeed, as a consequence of it – there has been no definite improvement in the situation as regards world hunger; indeed, as the motions for a resolution point out, this has got worse. It is not clear what sort of permanent and comprehensive body of Europe-wide legislation on non-commercial matters might be able to maintain the balancing act between, on the one hand, the maintenance and improvement of European agriculture's competitive position on world markets and, on the other hand, the protection of insufficiently competitive agriculture at a time when it is being made more multifunctional for the benefit of society. My mind is quite open as to whether the European agricultural model, combining multifunctionality with a policy of subsidies, can be implemented with any international legitimacy. The great danger is already present that this will prove no long-lasting protection and that the abandonment of European subsidy policy will then begin in earnest, because there will as yet be no political majorities, and where they do exist, they will be compromises. On the other hand, the WTO's fundamental categories do not include issues of rural development, environmental protection and animal welfare. What is true of enlargement must also be true of the WTO negotiations, the principle being that nobody should be any worse off. The situation before the negotiations and after them will be considered in that light, so we can look forward to the result with some excitement."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph