Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.3.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the rapporteur has made a really honourable attempt to embellish the common agricultural policy and its tragic consequences for farmers, but without managing to do anything more than repeat the set of arguments which the Commission has also cited from time to time in order to justify its unjustifiable CAP and its reforms. Arguments which have proven to be thoroughly disorientating and hypocritical in the past are being shamelessly used again today, precisely in order to continue the same anti-farming policy.
What social and multifunctional agriculture is the rapporteur talking about when, during the 1995-2002 reference period, the workforce fell by 15.7%, with a commensurate reduction in agricultural households? Behind it, this number conceals the abandonment of entire areas, especially in the Mediterranean countries, it conceals the increase in unemployment and migration to the towns, with all the consequential problems and with incalculable consequences for environmental protection, for which the European Commission would supposedly do anything. He notes that agricultural incomes rose by an average of 7% in the European Union as a whole from 1995 to 2002. However, this increase is less than 1% per annum, meaning that it is much less than the average increase in GDP in the European Union over the same period and it concerns an economic sector in whose products the European Union has a deficit.
In addition, no analysis is made so that we can see which holdings reported an increase in income, how many small and medium-sized farming households had a reduction and how many went bankrupt. That is because the technique of averages in a differentiated social stratum such as agriculture is the best means of muddying the waters, of hiding acute class divisions and of concealing important social problems. So exactly what social and multifunctional agriculture are we talking about when the differential between agricultural incomes per worker is over 1 to 50 and when 20% of large holdings take up 73% of direct Community aid?
The unfair distribution in Community subsidies at the expense of small- and medium-sized farmers has proven over time the capitalist nature of the CAP, the objective of which is to concentrate land and production in a few capitalist farm holdings. Of course, wiping out small- and medium-sized farming and concentrating land will be completed by the new reform of the CAP, which is even worse than all the previous reforms. Let me quote the typical example of the decoupling of subsidies from production, which the rapporteur welcomes, together with the conversion of intervention schemes to simple insurance networks and the exit of farmers from the market to become businessmen, to quote Mr Fischler.
Reality is not consistent with the contradictory and prefabricated conclusions of the report. It is so gloomy that it leaves no room even for legerdemain or for further misleading farmers. The common agricultural policy of extermination will be fought against by the small- and medium-sized farmers in my country and the European Union, who are realising more and more every day that overturning it is the only way they will survive and …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples