Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-434"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-05-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common organisation of the market in cereals (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070523.28.3-434"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-05-23-Speech-3-4352
lpv:speaker	lp:Bogdan Golik2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Samoobrona RP (2004-07-20--2007-12-16)3 member; PES (2004-12-01--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2005-09-21--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, the European Commission’s planned changes in the current system of cereal market intervention by excluding maize from the scheme intend to resolve the problem of the year on year increase in the maize surplus. I agree with the Commission’s arguments on the need to reform the mechanism of intervention, but implementing the planned changes overnight may do more harm than good. Reforming the cereal market should be gradual, and the measures taken should solve the existing problem in a comprehensive manner. Farmers must be given enough time to prepare for the changes. Instead of suddenly excluding maize from the intervention scheme, one solution would be to maintain intervention until 2008, and then gradually reduce or phase out the maize intervention scheme by establishing maximum intervention limits for individual Member States depending on their production levels, as is currently the case with the rice market (such a solution would increase the transparency of the system and make it easier to control the market); and eventually to maintain the maize intervention scheme for a transitional period of two years, as long as control is tightened to avoid the accumulation of excessive surpluses. These solutions would allow us to phase out maize intervention without suddenly upsetting the market, as it is not just an intervention scheme, but also an export support scheme from the free market in the form of export refunds. In this context we also need to modify our current export support instruments for cereals from the free market to enable the export of goods from countries with unfavourable locations such as Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. The main market for EU cereal exports is North Africa and the Middle East, which means that for the countries mentioned any exported cereals require expensive sea transportation over a longer distance than cereals exported from ports in the west or the south of Europe. This solution would also increase the efficiency of cereal exports. This mechanism is also worth maintaining in the coming economic year. Please do not regard my speech as an attempt to purely and solely express my solidarity with the wonderful Hungarian people (according to the famous Polish and Hungarian proverb ‘Poles and Hungarians are brothers, both in the sword and in the glass’, although in this case I would say ‘Poles and Hungarians are brothers, both in the sword and in cereal’, which in Hungarian would be ), but rather as a means of logically phasing out the maize intervention scheme."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"lengyel, magyar két jóbarát, együtt harcol s arat gabonát"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph