Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.20.2-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I continue to oppose this regulation for five reasons that are important to my constituency. Firstly, voluntary modulation by its very nature amounts to a snatch and grab of farmers’ resources by national governments. There is nothing voluntary about it.
Secondly, it accentuates inequality across Europe and distorts the market, with only the United Kingdom, it seems, committed to fleecing its farmers through voluntary modulation. Compulsory modulation is bad enough, but at least it is evenly spread.
Thirdly, unlike the previous scheme, this proposal does not compel Member States to produce matching funding so, in reality, in my constituency, the anti-farming UK Government will not produce such funding. The result is a double deficit to UK farmers, extra top-slicing of their single farm payment and no matching funding from the Exchequer into the rural economy.
Fourthly, it stifles essential local variation by prohibiting regional approaches, something which the outgoing scheme permits. Both pillar one and pillar two policies are in the main devolved matters within the United Kingdom, hence the logic of permitting local variation in the modulation rates.
Fifthly and finally, the Commission proposal continues to have a franchise provision which allows some to escape paying, leaving others to have to pay more. So, for those reasons, just as I voted against this tawdry regulation in November, I will do so again."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples