Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-187"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common organisation of the market in sugar – Support schemes for farmers (sugar) – Restructuring the sugar industry2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060117.20.2-187"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-17-Speech-2-1882
lpv:speaker	lp:Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; AGRI (2004-07-23--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Commissioner, we are agreed that sugar reform was necessary. The market organisation for sugar had become perverse in terms of the quantities and budgetary resources concerned: after all, exports exceeded quotas by 5–6 million tonnes, which led to a disastrous dumping effect. The benefits gained by the ACP countries who were able to supply us with a proportion of their sugar on our terms were counteracted by the collapse in prices to which we contributed by means of this dumping on the world market. Although we were in agreement, two different approaches were proposed. On the one hand there was the idea of using quotas to return quantities to reasonable proportions and giving countries in the developing world, including the least developed countries, more involvement. On the other hand there was the Commission’s approach of starting to liberalise this organisation, cutting prices and promoting rationalisation in these fields – a solution that would culminate in full liberalisation. We argued long and hard in committee – although there is no point going into details about this now, nor would there be time. Having noticed that there was considerable opposition within Parliament, the Commissioner proceeded to bypass our institution and, together with the Council, to conclude the matter without any regard for Parliament. She knew that she could afford to do so because, firstly, she could assume that Parliament had no power of codecision and, secondly, because she had handed out presents to those whose interests were affected by this sugar market organisation. The most generous gift – the restructuring aid of EUR 6 billion to industry – then produced a change of heart in the interest groups. That is how she managed to carry her reform through. The only issue that still generates a great deal of opposition is the question as to how these restructuring funds will be managed. We have presented proposals for this. The scenario where farmers receive only 10% and where it is not compulsory to make business and regional development plans in which social and environmental criteria or the workers play a part, is unacceptable. My group will therefore, be proposing that this issue be referred back to committee, to enable us to negotiate it with the Commissioner and to achieve something for the farmers and the regions. If we let it go through as it is, no one will lift a finger. I hope that the other groups will follow our lead."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph