Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-119"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2003 budgetary procedure2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021022.6.2-119"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-22-Speech-2-1202
lpv:speaker	lp:Christel Fiebiger2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in March 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on guidelines for the 2003 Budget. A series of issues were mentioned that are of the utmost significance for the future viability of our policies on agriculture and rural development. These include the mid-term review of Agenda 2000, consumer protection and enlargement. I hope that the Commission is sufficiently courageous and competent also to take account of these long-term objectives when it is implementing the budget and that it will not be distracted by more immediate political concerns. I hope that sources of conflict, such as shortcomings in accounting procedures, fiddling and cooking of the books, are eliminated and that instead transparency and strict discipline are the order of the day when the budget is implemented. Both nationally and internationally, interested members of the public are presented with a confused and contradictory picture of agricultural policy. As they currently stand, Commissioner Fischler's proposals have not met with the approval of a majority. More work therefore needs to be done on them. Despite the fact that the applicant countries have made huge economic and social adjustments, the Berlin decisions provide that the funds to be transferred to the accession countries, in the form of pre-accession aid, and expenditure on enlargement are to be maintained as laid down and made public. Several discussions in which I have participated have reinforced my view, in favour of the applicant countries, that the 25% rule for direct payments is politically unacceptable; in addition the applicant countries fear high losses and are demanding an accession rebate and a change in their quotas. This will have a major impact on the funding of the agricultural policy and the current financial perspective will have to be revised. How much will enlargement cost? That is the question. How we are to respond to this in the 2003 Budget remains unknown. A vital question for the agricultural sector is 1.05% + X and for as long as it remains unanswered the implementation of the 2003 Budget will remain a dangerous business as far as agriculture is concerned."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph