Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-166"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20050607.25.2-166"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Böge on his balanced report. Despite quite a few obstacles right across the agricultural sector, it is a very even-handed document. It is European agriculture that makes the multi-annual budget possible, because it is the only sector that is dramatically tightening its belt. We will be cutting our budget from 36% to 26%. That appears to me to be a huge step forward for all other sectors in order for them to adopt European policy. Two obstacles remain. We have an agreement from Brussels that prescribes the permitted level of growth in that budget. At the same time, I notice that no funds have been set aside for Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession. Now that European agriculture is cutting back so drastically, I cannot imagine how under the Brussels agreement, Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession can also be funded with those 26%. In an extreme situation, it could mean that, since that agreement and the relevant cuts have to be borne by the 15 old Member States, a situation could arise in 2012 where farmers in the 15 old Member States receive 15% less premiums than the farmers in the new Member States. Surely that cannot be the case. By using partial cofinancing as a solution to this problem, Mr Böge provides the option of fighting fire with fire, although this has been greeted by huge protests in Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture, for, first of all, the very tricky question remains of whether it is legally enforceable. Secondly, we greatly value the common market and want to preserve it. Whatever happens, cofinancing in compulsory expenditure must not lead to the renationalisation of agricultural policy. I have one observation left to make with regard to the Council. There is a great deal of talk about net payments. Could I advise the Council to deduct the Member States’ own resources from their net payments? That would amount to half of the net payments in my country, and that might well prove the answer to the problem."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph