Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-26-Speech-2-169"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2005 budget procedure2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041026.12.2-169"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-10-26-Speech-2-1702
lpv:speaker	lp:Esko Seppänen2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-21--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vasemmistoliitto (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, I too had something positive to say about Commissioner Schreyer’s five-year term of office, but I cannot find anything to add to what has already been said here today, and I will therefore simply say thank you, on behalf of my group, to Commissioner Schreyer. Regarding next year’s budget, it has to be said that our group’s opinion of it varies considerably. Many of the representatives of countries classified as net contributors support the Council’s stringent 1% line. The majority of our group, however, think the budget is too stringent, as the priorities highlighted by Parliament are not being implemented, especially in the area of external relations. Of the priorities set out by the rapporteur for the Commission’s budget, we support the idea of highlighting the importance of the Lisbon Strategy, but we regret that the large parliamentary groups were unwilling to increase funding in areas relating to employment and social welfare. Business is setting the terms for the way we proceed to too great an extent. There are two aspects to consider with regard to increasing appropriations for information. More money is being proposed for campaigns in favour of the new Constitution of the European Union. It is our experience that both the Commission and Parliament are channelling these funds for purposes of propaganda, and are trying to influence the final result of the referenda in the Member States. Money set aside for information on the EU is all too often used for persuasive advertising, without presenting all the sides of an issue. This is not justified, especially as far as the issue of the Constitution is concerned, as that currently falls exclusively within the competence of the Member States, and not at all within that of the Community institutions. The national parties in our group do not constitute a common European political party. Not all parties on the left wish to restrict their freedom of action with some sort of rigid party line or enforced solidarity at Union level. Some members of our group therefore take a dim view of parliamentary funds being spent on supporting European political parties. There would seem to be more sympathy for increasing funding for the salaries of assistants. We await with interest the negotiations between Parliament and the Council for the second reading of the budget. The margins that are now being created are not sufficient to cover the priorities of both the Council and Parliament, and both have to make compromises on their objectives. Our group will adopt a final position on the draft budget when we see the outcome of the talks that are now commencing."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph