Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-051"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agricultural incomes in the EU2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040210.3.2-051"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-10-Speech-2-0522
lpv:speaker	lp:Karl Erik Olsson2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Centerpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Garot for a valuable contribution to the debate on farmers’ incomes. Mr Garot is a committed politician on agricultural matters. He is well informed and takes a positive view of agriculture. I have to say that, as a Swede, I am rather envious. We could have done with a few Social Democrats of that kind in the Swedish Government. It would have been very useful for us. Allow me to address a number of points I think are important. Mr Garot states that agriculture should be carried on throughout the whole area of the EU. That is very important to remember, especially when the parts of the EU concerned are those such as I myself come from, that is to say Sweden or Finland. He also addresses another very important matter, namely the difference between cost development and price development. A discrepancy arises that can be resolved with the help of rationalisation, but not to an unlimited degree. It must be ensured that this discrepancy does not become too large. We have seen how it has increased in my own country following the latter’s accession to the EU. It is now far too large, and production is in decline. We have defended the agricultural reform. That has been decided upon. It is not, however, good for it to be implemented at different speeds in different countries. This is important, something that is also pointed out in the report. When the agricultural reform is implemented at different speeds, there is a danger of making further changes to competitiveness or of creating an uneven playing field in the different countries where competitiveness is concerned. It is now a matter of extreme urgency to do as much as is humanly possible in terms of environmental aid and aid for rural development. As Mr Garot says in his report, there is a danger of this being undermined if the Member States are to cofinance it. This is an area I am concerned about. I must, however, address a number of aspects of this report that I do not think are as good. It is rather anti-reform, if I may say so. The desire is to keep as many people as possible in agriculture. I do not believe that this is realistic in the long term. I do not believe it is realistic to retain far-reaching market regulation or prices set by politicians, nor to have a regulated supply of the type we have involving quotas. We must seek to reduce border protection in order to cope with world trade. Now that we are carrying out this disengagement, it would have been better if we could have done it completely from the beginning and, in fact, throughout the EU in the one go. As a result of these considerations, I and many others in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will unfortunately abstain from voting. We cannot vote in favour of this report but, in view of all the plus points I mentioned at the beginning, we cannot vote against it, either. We shall no doubt abstain from voting in the final vote, because it is only a single vote."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph