Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-308"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.11.2-308"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, as the rapporteur emphasises, our experience of the previous fisheries agreement with Greenland was extremely disappointing, with much lower percentages of catches than the quotas that were initially established. Despite that fact that it did not fish, the European Union nevertheless made payments, on time, of an average of EUR 38 million per year during the period covered by the previous agreement. The most shocking aspect of this third agreement is that fishing possibilities for the period in question are being reduced, whereas the European Union’s financial compensation, which stands at around EUR 43 million per year, is being increased. In other words, we are paying more for fishing considerably less. What has brought about this decision by the European Union to sign a fisheries agreement despite the negative experience of the previous agreement? Our rapporteur highlights two main reasons: the first is the importance of this agreement for the conclusion of other agreements in the region, specifically with Norway and Iceland, and the second reason is that it is crucial for the fleets of countries that fish there.
For these reasons and despite all the inconsistencies, the rapporteur proposes that we adopt the report. I understand these reasons and shall, therefore, not oppose the rapporteur’s proposal, although I have adopted various amendments tabled by other Members of the House. We must nevertheless bear in mind that, according to the two main arguments invoked by the rapporteur to persuade us to support this agreement, this one was to be followed by other fisheries agreements, which did not happen, as we know, with the agreement with Morocco. The agreement with Morocco was not signed despite the fact that this was essential to the fleets of two Member States that fished there and the fact that it was a fundamental sign that we needed to give in order to conclude other fisheries agreements in the region, with Mauritania and with other countries to the south of Mauritania, for example. There can be no doubt that this is an incomprehensible two-tier policy with two sets of standards, and I hope that the relevant Member State governments – Portugal and Spain – take due account of what has happened and what is happening with this agreement with Greenland, in order to make a similar procedure hold sway in the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples