Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.3.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mrs Haug attended the Detlev Samland school of speaking to the clock and just carried straight on, as Detlev always used to.
Though we are talking about a PDB for the year 2001, it is somewhat difficult not to link it to the revision of the Financial Perspective. I know we should not do so, but there is that link between the two which makes me want to comment on both.
For the Commission proposals to be successful three factors will be crucial. The first is the assessment of needs for the western Balkans. In a couple of weeks’ time, Parliament will send an ad hoc delegation to Kosovo to try and make an assessment. We will need to opt for the Commission proposal of EUR 5.5 billion in total or move towards the Council which is proposing a somewhat lower figure.
The second factor will be Parliament's attitude to redeployment, especially in Category IV, not just for 2001 but for the whole of the Financial Perspective. That is why I say they have to be linked. I will give you an example. One area of great interest for me – I make no secret of it – is South Africa. The proposal to take EUR 2 million per year away from South Africa for six years may not seem much. But EUR 12 million is a lot of money for the projects in South Africa. I would not be happy with that and I am sure other people in other areas of interest in Category IV would adopt a similar attitude. Then we have Parliament's attitude towards redeployment in Category I. Similarly, we have to consider our approach to the use of the flexibility instrument if it was invoked for Serbia, as you suggest. We have to bear in mind what the Interinstitutional Agreement says about a rule not being used for the same things in consecutive years. Once again that would be a challenge for Parliament.
The third factor, and probably the most important one, is the attitude of the Council. If they reject what you are proposing, especially as far as the revision goes, the question remains: what will you do next? I know we have a trialogue and a conciliation before their first reading but it is a problem we have to resolve before the Council's first reading. What happens if the Council is adamant and rejects the Commission's proposals?
Mrs Schreyer, you are something of a juggler and an illusionist at the same time, with the proposals that have been made. You have to keep several balls in the air and, at the same time, because of what is proposed after 2003, you have to make more appear. One of the great mysteries in your proposals on the revision is where the money will come from after 2003. But that is not for next year. That is for the future. In the meantime we await developments on those three factors. Hopefully, at the end of this process, we will get a satisfactory outcome."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"chairman of the Committee on Budgets. –"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples