Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-01-Speech-3-077"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-12-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financial perspectives2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041201.11.3-077"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-12-01-Speech-3-0782
lpv:speaker	lp:Lars Wohlin2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Junilistan (2004-07-20--2006-09-27)3 member; IND/DEM (2004-07-20--2006-09-25)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; BUDG (2004-07-21--2006-09-25)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as a member of the temporary committee, I abstained from voting on a resolution that I had not been allowed to study first and that I cannot support. I wish, in this House, to summarise my position, which is different from that which emerged in the temporary committee. I support the idea of there needing to be a ceiling on expenditure during the forthcoming seven-year period up until 2013. In my view, it is important to have such a ceiling, which should apply not only to expenses and payments but also to commitments. I think it important not simply to dismiss this view, which only six out of twenty-five countries are said to have supported, for the countries concerned are those that make major net contributions. It should be emphasised that unity is required on this issue if it is to be possible to adopt a financial framework and that there is a very strong desire not to impose unduly heavy burdens upon national taxpayers. It is also regrettable that the Prodi Commission’s old report was taken as the basis for the Commission’s proposal. I believe that the basis should have been the one per cent target but that Parliament must, however, have a large influence on the distribution of resources within this framework. In other words, this is not a tactic for moving resources to one area or another. It is only within such a framework that a true prioritising of resources can be brought about. I also support the seven-year plan because it provides regulations for budgeting in each country, an activity funded not by the European Parliament but by the national parliaments. We are clearly opposed to the EU’s introducing its own forms of taxation, for that would lead to a loss of overall control of taxation. I also wish to emphasise our belief that agriculture should not be exempt from such re-planning as is necessary if it is to be possible to invest in new areas. Such re-planning will provide scope for many new initiatives."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph