Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.2.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In the budget vote we have generally voted against the Committee’s proposals to increase agricultural expenses in category 1. The reason is that we believe that the EU’s money can be better used in other areas where it is really needed. It is not reasonable for approximately half of the Union’s total budget each year to be spent on subsidising the production and export of agricultural products. The current Common Agricultural Policy is not only expensive for the Union, but also contributes to higher consumer prices. The export subsidies mean that the EU’s food surplus is dumped on the world market at low prices, as a result of which the food industry in many developing countries, for example, suffers serious competitive disadvantages. The fact that, in addition, the Union provides subsidies for tobacco cultivation is particularly worth commenting on. The EU’s activities and budget should instead be directed towards cross-border problems that the Member States cannot solve themselves. The EU’s agricultural policy, in the form of export and production subsidies, should therefore be wound down and, to a certain extent, replaced by subsidies for bio-diversity and environmental measures.
In the matter of the external measures in category 4, we have chosen to vote according to a line which does not require revision of the Financial Perspective. For us, support for the democracy movement and reconstruction of the countries in the Balkan region is one of the EU’s most important priorities. It is particularly important to be able to offer subsidies for improving the situation in Serbia.
To request a revision of the Financial Perspective at this stage would be unfortunate. If the budget plan is revised, we believe that there will be a significant risk of the EU’s costs generally increasing, which is not currently acceptable. Parliament should therefore act to maintain the Interinstitutional Agreement and to keep the budget within the framework of the budget plan. We believe that funds for the Balkans can instead be taken from the programmes in category 4 that are sadly not fully utilised at present. Funds can also be released through mobilisation of the flexibility instrument."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples