Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-226"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:General debate on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 20032
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020924.10.2-226"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-24-Speech-2-2272
lpv:speaker	lp:Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; AGRI (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Commissioner Fischler, it is apparent yet again from today's discussion that some people are keen to feather their nests from the agricultural budget. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – and I myself – do not believe that too much money is flowing into agriculture and Europe's rural regions. The money may not be flowing into the right channels, but that is why there is a need for reform. We therefore oppose linear cuts because we believe that what is required are not linear cuts but qualified measures. Of course, a key element in this context is to dispense with export subsidies in a region which is one of the largest importers in the world. We would like to see the option of a transfer from the first to the second pillar. To this end, it is essential that we have co-decision rights in respect of the obligatory expenditure as well. That is an urgent requirement. We have specifically adopted amendments which go beyond the Institutional Agreement because we want to force a new agreement and debate. Mr Fischler, these needs are also identified in your reform proposals. The financial perspective must be amended. We would therefore like to support this. We will undoubtedly get bogged down in discussions again later, but we think this is acceptable in principle. With regard to the transfer to the second pillar, let me point out again that we have re-introduced our INPART programme. The name has been changed. We are now calling it LEADER-EAST, since we have progressed further along the road to enlargement. However, we still endorse the concept of establishing a bottom-up programme for the new Member States as well. Finally, we would like genetic resources to be transferred to the non-obligatory part. You are familiar with the issues. I think that the Commission will go along with this. We simply have to try and find sufficient funds here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph