Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-06-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100906.17.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Bové has tabled a very good report and we were all very much in agreement in Committee; there were just four votes against.
We are naturally surprised, therefore, that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have tabled amendments to have certain paragraphs removed from the report. It is astonishing to find a compromise that has already been reached being later called into question. I am curious as to the reasons, but I am also curious as to why then one would take the time to sit down and draw up something together.
Let me give some examples of what I am talking about. Paragraph 8 calls for an observatory to be established for price and profit margins in the agricultural sector. There is agreement on this, but to do so obviously requires prices to be compared – as stated in the second part. That is precisely what the PPE Group no longer wants. It causes me to wonder, Mrs Köstinger, whether there is a discrepancy between what you say and what you do.
The paragraph that the ALDE Group wants removed is even better. There is a general view that marketing products below production cost should be banned throughout the Union. That was something on which there was once a consensus. I believe that being against dumping practices is something that we demand from everyone – including our trading partners in the WTO. Why does the ALDE Group want to remove this particular paragraph? We find it incomprehensible.
In a further paragraph, we call on the Commission to propose legal provisions that will create instruments to limit price volatility, in order to reduce the producers’ high level of dependence. This, too, is to be deleted. There are therefore many questions to ask concerning why this consensus is now being undermined and why positions that were already in Mr Leinen’s report and thus also supported by the ALDE Group are now being questioned.
I therefore urge all agricultural politicians to adopt a common position, because farmers feel it is high time we came up with some answers as to how we can bring an end to this unsustainable state of affairs in which farmers are the losers in the food supply chain.
At present, we are experiencing another wave of speculation in the agricultural sector which, in the final event, serves nobody – neither farmers nor consumers. It is time to do something at last. Consumers, too, are demanding this of us, and I merely ask that what we say to farmers outside this House concurs with what we do in Parliament. I therefore hope that in the end, this report will be adopted exactly as it was tabled."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples