Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-14-Speech-2-422-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120214.20.2-422-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, President-in-Office of the Council, we have just had a debate that, in spite of everything, was interesting because for the first time it was a real debate on a free trade agreement.
Some people referred to the facts, others to ideology, even belief, belief in free trade as a stepping stone to democracy. I hope that those people do not find themselves one day in a situation where they have to face the people who have suffered because of free trade agreements, of any kind: today the peasant farmers who produce fruit and vegetables, or tomorrow the meat producers when it is time for the Mercosur agreement. I believe that this free trade agreement is a bad agreement, especially for Morocco’s peasant farmers.
If the ‘yes’ vote prevails on Thursday – which is of course possible as I do not know what will happen – it will mean that you are creating all of the conditions for the Arab Spring to arrive finally in Morocco. That means that you will be in a bit of a strange situation tomorrow. In fact, the agreement provides for an increase of more than 50% for European products on Moroccan territory, compared with just 15% for Moroccan products in Europe, which means that hundreds of thousands of Moroccan families are going to be thrown out on the street because of these exports to their country. Is that what you want?
I get the impression today that you are not talking about the reality. You refuse to talk about the reality. We are accepting this agreement because Morocco is promising to protect us from the immigration from Africa. That is what is happening and it also features in all of your texts. Are we concluding economic agreements solely to build a wall on the other side of the Mediterranean to protect Europe?
We have to get serious! We have to get back to the actual facts, and the actual facts all come down to agriculture. However, this agreement is a bad plan for agriculture. A 1% increase in volume over what is offered could lead to prices collapsing. As you are all too aware, Commissioner, the balance between supply and demand is very fragile. A 1% adjustment can make prices collapse and have devastating consequences.
We know that Perpignan is currently a key transit point for tomatoes. We know that the head offices of the two largest firms, Azura and Idyl, are located in France. We know that today. So why are we continuing in this manner? We also know that the Commission has internal EU documents that show that more than 700 000 hectares were given to the Persian Gulf fund. You cannot deny that today; it is the Commission’s own documents that prove it.
We need to get serious when it comes to the issue of water, too. We are told today that there is no information about water, even though European universities, in the Netherlands, in France and in Spain, in addition to Moroccan universities are providing figures.
I do not need to say any more. As regards our obligation to Western Sahara, I did not want to turn it into a political battle, but simply to raise a point of law. Indeed, the law is clear-cut. If Western Sahara is not excluded from this agreement tomorrow, you could face the possibility of action before the European Court of Justice."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples