Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-29-Speech-4-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070329.23.4-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against the third part of point 25 of the Lamassoure report for two main reasons:
Firstly, as Portuguese socialists, we cannot accept any attempt to scale back that most common of European policies, and what is being proposed is tantamount to renationalising the CAP.
The cofinancing proposal, that is, to have the Member States partially finance the budget of the first pillar of the CAP, is unjustified because there are other solutions under which the Council’s financial commitments undertaken in October 2002 could be honoured without the need for a contribution from the national budgets of the 15 EU Member States prior to the 2004 enlargement.
By way of an alternative to cofinancing, ceilings could be established for aid individually awarded to farmers – along the lines of the US model, in which the limit is set at USD 250 000 – along with ‘compulsory modulation’, whereby there is a percentage reduction of aid to the biggest beneficiaries of direct aid from the CAP, thereby generating the savings needed to honour the commitments.
Secondly, because there is an irreparable contradiction in the wording of this point. At the same time as making a solemn promise not to renationalise the CAP, it also proposes an end to the current system of complete Community funding by introducing national cofinancing, which is precisely the main instrument for renationalising the CAP, given farmers from Member States with the biggest budgets will be placed at a major advantage over farmers from Member States with the smallest."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples