Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.5.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, we are not satisfied with the budget as it concerns agriculture. Our proposals were not taken on board, although the Council made us a few small concessions, but our essential demand for a new institutional agreement in order to be able to transfer surplus funds from the first pillar to the second, has not been met, the belief being that things simply cannot be done that way. We now note with astonishment that the exact opposite happened in Copenhagen, in that funds were, with a stroke of the pen, transferred from rural development in the second pillar in order to make room for funds to be disbursed as direct payments. I have to say that I find this scandalous. We in Parliament drafted a resolution expressing our opposition to direct payments and to their being transferred to the new Member States of the EU, and also stating that we take it as read that payments as a whole will not be affected, but that this is being done by way of support for rural development, that is, in the second pillar. That has not been complied with.
The Brussels conclusions imposed a financial cap that does not exhaust the possibilities offered by Berlin. No cap was imposed on the financing of the second development, and we had hoped that this would mean that reform could include Parliament within the second pillar, enabling it to participate in these areas and enabling progress to be made with the second pillar. But if a Council decision takes the funds, agreement to which had been reached in this House by a great deal of effort, and transfers them back to a development that we do not want, that, Commissioner, is not in accordance with Parliament's intentions.
I therefore take the view that this cannot be approved in this way, that we will have to deal with it in the negotiations on the next Budget, and that we very definitely expect the European Convention to make codecision applicable in matters of agricultural policy both as regards its substance and also what are termed the mandatory funds. Rather than, in the long term, putting up with the Council shifting things hither and thither as it pleases, we want to be able to vote on the budget and decide these matters for ourselves."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples