Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-07-Speech-4-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021107.4.4-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This parliamentary vote has fulfilled the commitment imposed on Parliament by Parliament itself and by the European citizens to create, as quickly as possible, a legal measure to allow the EU to mobilise the necessary funds to help disaster-stricken areas. We must congratulate ourselves on this.
In my opinion, however, the result could have been even better.
First of all, greater transparency. What was adopted today should have been annexed to the existing interinstitutional agreement, not a new standard.
Secondly, a matter of rigidity. Item 2 states that, in October, 25% of the Fund must be available as a matter of obligation. This is too rigid. If, in a given tax year, 75% is spent in spring, would the Commission have to make a recommendation that we all avoid bringing disasters on ourselves until the beginning of October?
Lastly, an inconsistency on the part of the Council. In order to make the best use of appropriations, the Council asked to be able to redistribute existing appropriations, but only in the amended spending categories: Internal Spending and Pre-accession. In Internal Spending, however, there is not a single euro left to spend. Redistribution in the event of a disaster can therefore only apply to pre-accession countries. Would it not be possible to use any agricultural appropriations that are not spent during the year?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples