Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-144"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock - Multiannual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock - Prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound - Use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101122.16.1-144"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-22-Speech-1-1452
lpv:speaker	lp:Pat the Cope Gallagher2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and colleagues for their contributions, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, the secretariat of the Fisheries Committee, the Council, the Commission, my group’s policy adviser, and indeed my own adviser. I understand that the Council, at a technical level, is divided as to whether or not the harvest control rule should be exclusively decided by the Council. I also understand that the 27 Ministers have yet to discuss this dossier in full, and this issue in particular. I hope that common sense will prevail. With regard to the Commissioner’s difficulty with +/-5 000 tonnes, I would say to you, Commissioner, that this was a pragmatic solution. We have been dealing with this dossier for over a year now and it was a way forward. I believe that at times, we have to be pragmatic in order to overcome the difficulty. I would like to say to those in the S&D Group that there is absolutely no ambiguity about my position in relation to your amendment. I will certainly be recommending that we support that amendment. In relation to the PPE Group’s proposal, I would say that the PPE Group should reflect on this. I was very careful to include its concerns in Amendment 7, which deals with the Bay of Biscay. It deals with artisanal fisheries and historic rights. Anyone who supports that must remember that we will have many more reports in Parliament. If you support something that is wrong now, it may well be that, if you are to be consistent, you will have to support something that is wrong in the future. Scientifically, it is totally wrong to split a TAC, and that is not just my personal opinion. If we do it now, we may well have to do it in the future in a one-stock fishery. Multiannual plans are vital to allow the sector to plan forward. Hopefully, good sense will prevail tomorrow and we will put in place a report that we can stand over."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; PECH (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3 unknown; Fianna Fáil Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 chair; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 substitute; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Pat the Cope Gallagher,"1 "rapporteur."1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph