Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081118.4.2-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Evaluating the situation does not mean simply a review of the common agricultural policy (CAP). In reality, we are talking about the reform of the CAP and a significant reduction in support to agriculture. This is unacceptable from the perspective of Hungary and Hungarian farmers.
The reforms to date have done nothing but harm to Hungarian agriculture.
In Hungary, modulation would even affect smaller 20-hectare farms. What is needed for these smaller farms is not a reduction but rather an increase in direct support. Applying modulation in the new Member States before 2013 would, moreover, be contrary to the accession agreement.
In the interest of food security, we continue to need support in aid of production and market arrangements, including grain intervention. We find it unacceptable that the intervention price should be tied to the price at Rouen port, since transport costs mean prices are lower in the more distant and especially the new Member States, and this constitutes discrimination.
We oppose an increase to the milk quota. The increase to milk quotas in spring proved to be a flawed decision, leading to a fall in milk prices in several Member States. Increasing the milk quota is particularly contrary to Hungary’s interests, since we have a significant level of unused milk quota. Such a step would prevent Hungarian producers from increasing their production.
We agree with maintaining support to tobacco producers. Several thousand families earn their livelihood from tobacco production, notably in the country’s most disadvantaged, north-eastern regions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples