Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.2.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by putting some questions to the Commission in the person of Commissioner Fischler. Why is it that for the banana trade you are advocating pure and simple liberalisation with effect from 2006, whereas in the case of meat, milk and cereals, which absorb 68% of EAGGF Guarantee Section resources, you refer to the special characteristics of European agriculture, as the Commission did in Seattle? Surely it is unacceptable to be applying two different sets of criteria. Is the Commission not guilty of double standards here? Are bananas the poor relation of agricultural production in the European Union? Should the European agricultural model not be used to safeguard banana production in the European Union which will certainly be threatened by the liberalisation being proposed? Is there also a plan to liberalise trade in meat, milk and cereals? Will the Commission yield to the more radical approach adopted by the United States at a time when the Americans are significantly increasing their support for agriculture? Is no attention being paid at all to the fact that bananas are the main agricultural product in four outermost regions which are amongst the 10 most disadvantaged regions in the European Union?
What is the relevance of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, which provides for special treatment for the outermost regions, to the proposal to amend the Regulation on the COM in bananas? The multi-functionality of European agriculture, which is a key aspect of the European agricultural model I have already mentioned, needs to be reflected in this reform, since in Madeira, for example (the region that I represent in this House) the environmental aspect of agriculture is as important as, or even more important than, its economic aspect. If banana production were to cease on the island of Madeira, it would represent an enormous environmental catastrophe as well as a serious loss of income for thousands of families. Furthermore, as we saw in Seattle, the new round of WTO negotiations should be a genuine development round. For this reason, we can justify giving priority to bananas produced in the European Union and in the ACP countries when we reform the common organisation of the market in bananas and this would be perfectly legitimate. And it is only by maintaining import quotas that we can achieve this objective, which is perfectly compatible with World Trade Organisation rules."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples