Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-378"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.29.2-378"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Thank you for your contributions to this important debate. One of the points raised by several Members concerned the question as to why the new Member States did not get a higher quota from the very beginning. The potato starch quotas for the new Member States were negotiated in Copenhagen in 2002 and agreed by the candidate countries and the EU-25. They were calculated in exactly the same way as quotas for other Member States, taking an average of the production during a three-year reference period.
As regards the example of Poland that was mentioned, let me offer a few figures. Average production in Poland from 1999 until 2001 was 107 317 tonnes; nevertheless, a quota of 144 985 tonnes was granted to Poland. Therefore, to talk of unjust quota does not seem entirely justified. I fully recognise the importance of Poland as a producer of potatoes, but let me remind you that starch quotas are based on historical production and not on the potential of the different Member States.
The other issues concern the extension of the time frame to four years and the possibility of quota transfer to the new Member States. In my opening statement I made it clear that I cannot accept the amendments proposed in the report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples