Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-453"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Set aside for year 2008 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070925.36.2-453"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-09-25-Speech-2-4542
lpv:speaker	lp:Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)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 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; AGRI (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Madam Commissioner, yes, we have worked quickly, but the Commission has also been late in submitting its proposals. This has been discussed for a long time and the growers’ impatience has pretty much been fuelled by the question of when it will finally be over. We have not held up anything, that is true, nor did we want to do that. Your justification is that prices are high and some stabilisation was needed here. I hope we are both pleased – and especially your husband with his enterprise – that money will finally be reaching the enterprises. This has been long overdue, and we should be careful to say here that we must do something to push down prices. What is more, this somewhat contradicts your statement this morning in relation to sugar. You will remember that you said: with the price of grain as it is, people are now perhaps going faster into cereals and out of sugar. If you force grain prices down again now, your own logic and your own intention could be undermined with it. You address the fact that this entails crop rotations. Yes, that is correct. Originally, this was a measure associated with crop rotation, since crop rotation also needed vegetation. This means we have to attend to the environmental aspect, even though this has been very much neglected in recent years, simply by making continual set-aside possible, whereby a large proportion would be taken into production for energy products. We are asking you in an amendment not just to deal with what you have in mind for 2008, but also to tell us in Parliament how crop rotations are to be arranged with a view to environmental protection."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph