Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.3.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, today’s debate is certainly a welcome one, but it covers some very different subjects. I shall therefore confine my comments to the subjects raised by Mr McCartin and Mr Staes.
Regarding the first of these reports, the French Members of our group cannot endorse its comments on butterfat, which challenge the Council decision to maintain guaranteed prices until 2005.
This is a decision we think is particularly justifiable, and one that is essential for farmers. Similarly, we do not think that the fact that 92%
of appropriations available in 1998 under the disposal measure “butter for non-profit organisations” was spent in just three Member States, none of which is among the poorest in the European Union, as the resolution points out, is worth including as a serious argument. It is rather jumping the gun to forget that the phenomenon of the development of a fourth world and the impoverishment of certain social strata in our countries is a horrendous reality, and the return to still vulnerable growth is not about to make it possible to quickly reintegrate that sector of the population which has often been marginalised for a long period.
We do not find the report’s critical attitude to the aid given to the major cereal-producing regions to be satisfactory either, even though the report does, admittedly, pay special attention to the smaller cereal-producers within the European Union.
We do not share the report’s opinion, on the subject of swine fever, that pig farmers should bear the greater part of the financial burden involved in combating epidemics. One might well ask just why they should be expected to bear these additional costs when they are weighed down by considerable costs already.
They are clearly not the parties responsible for epizootic disease; they are its victims. So, unless we are seeking, once again, to renationalise the common agricultural policy on the quiet, there could be no question of accepting this proposal.
Mr Staes’ report on European Union aid to Bosnia and Herzegovina rightly condemns the serious financial mismanagement in the Office of the High Representative (OHR) during a dramatic period, what is more, and once again, at the expense of monies belonging to the citizens of Europe.
Our group also notes the request for the OHR and the Commission to provide information detailing the reasons leading to this confusion of interests.
Nor is it acceptable for EUR 2 million to be allocated to ineligible material in the sector of …."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples