Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, “blue” Europe, as it is metaphorically called, is in crisis. Our seas are being abused, our fish stocks are dwindling, and our fishermen, who are forced to remain idle, are finding it hard to accept the cruel fate that threatens the survival of a traditional activity and a particular way of life. On Tuesday, we debated in this Chamber the alarming breach in the Irish Sea of the ban on fishing for cod, that dish that is the very essence, by the way, of Portuguese cuisine. Today we are debating a fisheries agreement with Morocco. We are about to see another harsh blow dealt to fishing in the European Union. I say in the European Union and not just in two of its constituent parts, as some Members have insinuated: European solidarity must be more than empty words or just a one-dimensional idea that simply evaporates when the problems happen to be concentrated chiefly in Portugal and Spain... Unfortunately, the Commission was not able to reach new agreements in the negotiations with Morocco held before the expiry of the fisheries agreement on 30 November 1999. Almost a year later, it seems that we are back to square one. The little information that is available is unclear, despite the fact that negotiations have continued – or so we are told – with various complicated ups and downs. In spite of everything, the Commissioner has given us a guarantee today that negotiations will reopen next week and that progress is being made. He said this in very vague terms. He told us that there is a possibility of achieving a balanced partnership with Morocco. Is this true, or is he saying what he thinks we want to hear? Scepticism and confusion are widespread and legitimate. Does the European Union then not have sufficient weight and influence to convince its partner, Morocco, of the mutual advantages of signing the new agreement? What is actually going on here? Is the problem the rather unhelpful attitude of the Moroccan Government, which prefers to negotiate with companies on an individual basis, instead of negotiating with the European Union, with which it shares important and long-standing interests in several areas? Has the European Union lost all its diplomatic and economic influence? I think not! My view is that the European Union has underestimated the problem. What happens if the agreement fails? What attitude will the Council and the Commission adopt? Surely it will not be to wash their hands of the matter, given that they are the institutions with the power and the responsibility for conducting these negotiations. Lastly, in the undesirable event that negotiations should fail, the Union has a political and moral duty to support the fishermen and shipowners with a reasonable amount of aid that will ensure that they have the means to live. That is the minimum requirement, but by itself it is not enough. The Union must prepare a programme for conversion of activities carried out by the operators affected, in order to give them a stable future. Switching this problem to the Structural Funds and to the Member States would mean discrediting the Union in the eyes not only of those affected, but of the general public too.

Political group: PSE