Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081118.4.2-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As expected, the health check has created an opportunity for delving deeper into the principles of the common agricultural policy (CAP) than is the case with other areas of the European Union’s policy and budget.
Agricultural policy, which at one time absorbed most of the budget expenditure and will form one-third of the budget by the end of 2013, has been strongly criticised. The crowning argument concerned the disproportion between the role played by agriculture in the economy and employment and its share of the EU budget. This is a misunderstanding.
The CAP as a whole is a Community policy, and its share of the EU’s aggregate public expenditure, both national and common, does not exceed 0.3% of GDP. In addition, international realities have changed, and the disaster of famine in developing countries must make us think again of the principles of support for agriculture in Europe.
The European Parliament has discussed the problem carefully, as evidenced by the many amendments. From the point of view of a state where agriculture is a relatively large contributor to employment, as is the case in Poland, it would be legitimate to raise milk quotas and to provide national support for sectors that are most disadvantaged. When considering modulation, which has proved the most controversial of the issues, it is worth remembering that the ‘new’ Member States will reach 100% direct subsidy level only in 2013, and that modulation may be perceived as a harbinger of re-nationalisation of agricultural policy, which would be a disadvantage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples