Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-244"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2001 budget procedure (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001024.7.2-244"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-24-Speech-2-2452
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean-Louis Bourlanges2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2002-03-07)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Union pour la démocratie française (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you see before you a frustrated Member of the European Parliament. Frustrated because, after lengthy debates within the Committee on Budgets and after the commendable efforts of the general rapporteur, to whom I must pay tribute, I cannot see exactly what Parliament’s intentions are regarding the key problem of the revision of the financial perspective. By and large, we have two standpoints, that of the Council which persists in wishing to fund the new requirements of Kosovo and Serbia from the budget total established in Berlin without revision, and that of the Commission which is proposing to revise the financial perspective in order to finance these new requirements without seriously affecting the other policies, particularly the MEDA programme. To date, Parliament has always been in favour of avoiding redistributing funds within category 4 in order to finance the new requirements. It therefore declared itself in favour of revising the financial perspective. Today we feel that it is continuing to fight on this line, but not down to the last bullet. In spite of the rapporteur’s bolder proposal, we have voted in a text which does not mention the word “revision”, as if it was too vulgar a term, the r word rather than the f word, nor does it mention amounts, as if it were possible to reach any negotiated solution without specifying the amounts involved. I am concerned, and since I belong to a group that occasionally remembers that it was once Christian Democrat, I should like us to be faithful to the word of the Gospels and let your yea be yea and your nay, nay."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph