Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-10-22-Speech-2-658-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131022.44.2-658-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his hard work, also my fellow shadows. After a lot of hard work, CFP reform has been hailed as a success. Everyone acknowledges that, and this report on the EMFF is an opportunity to consolidate this good work. So how do we consolidate? By supporting the discard ban, by supporting our plans for MSY, through money for gear change and selective gear, money for data collection, and money for control and enforcement. I think we can all agree on that. But this report, as amended by Mr Cadec, represents an attempt to confound the simplicity of that approach by over-complication and obfuscation. What should be transparent becomes opaque. I will take one small example. Let us talk about engines.
Nothing in the Commission proposal was there for upgrading or replacement. In fact, these were explicitly and conspicuously made ineligible for EMFF funds. So the rapporteur changed the language. We did not talk about engines any more, we talked about energy efficiency and modernisation. This is euphemistic language calculated to obscure the real intent. So let us reject these euphemisms. We should say ‘no’ to construction, ‘no’ to engine replacement, ‘no’ to temporary and permanent cessation, and ‘no’ to mutual funds. There have been attempts to compromise but, in the end, no compromise is possible on these black-and-white issues. There is no middle of the road available.
As regards construction, how can we go back to our voters and say that we voted for a reformed CFP and turned the most discredited policy in the European Union into a source of opportunity and of hope? Now we want to reintroduce aid for construction, which was abolished in 2002 for being unsustainable. How can we do that? I will not do it, and I do not think anyone else should either."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples