Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-225"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.7.3-225"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I think that, all in all, I have given the honourable Member a very accurate answer, although it may not be the answer she wants to hear. However, may I clarify exactly what we have to do here. We cannot set a figure and then allow the Spanish to review how the money received is to be disbursed. The legal bases stipulate that we are obliged to do exactly the opposite.
First, the measures needed because the Morocco agreement failed to materialise must be defined. Then we must stipulate what proportion is to be funded from the existing Regional Fund, from the existing Social Fund and from the existing Guidance Fund. If these funds do not suffice, then we must consider where we can find the additional funds needed and the Commission is prepared to discuss this. However, until we have decided exactly what measures are to be implemented, the Commission cannot name an amount. That is a fact.
I must also remind you that even the last Morocco agreement contained a reduction in the size of the fleet and that, logically, not only would we have had to maintain this reduction in any new agreement, we would have had to do so with the money currently provided for in the funds. You are wrong to maintain that Spain now has a claim to EUR 250 million per annum because this sum was provided for in the previous agreement; on the contrary, Spain has a claim to a solution to the problem which has now arisen. What we now have to consider is how much money and what sort of money is needed in order to provide such a solution. That is the correct procedure and there is no alternative to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples