Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-212"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Policy challenges and budgetary means2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050607.25.2-212"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-07-Speech-2-2132
lpv:speaker	lp:Inés Ayala Sender2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PETI (2005-04-28--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; REGI (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 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; CONT (2004-09-16--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to acknowledge Mr Böge’s determination to carry out this exercise in financial engineering and balancing on the first occasion in the history of the financial perspectives that the European Parliament has voluntarily set its direct ambitions even lower than the Commission’s proposal, which was already minimal. Only the opportunity to facilitate a quick, balanced and fair agreement, which clears up any doubts and anxieties at this time, could justify this. That is how we wish to interpret the Commission's conciliatory words and we would urge the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to do so. Nevertheless, I am not pleased that Parliament should be demonstrating a minimalist tendency which began with the last Agenda 2000 and which has not helped to increase confidence amongst the European citizens. I am referring to the risk of the budget returning to a renationalising tendency and of basing the Union’s objectives upon insufficient resources. We regret the pressure represented by the initial proposal of six Member States, some of which were perfectly understandable given the current situation, but others are guilty of not sufficiently explaining the added value of each euro spent and the high economic and commercial return resulting from the Union's development. We regret that the 1% has replaced the ideas by percentage, but, on the other hand, it has also relaunched the debate on the urgency of fundamentally reviewing the system of own resources. What we do not agree with is the fact that the rapporteur applies it exclusively to the funding of the CAP, which is still trying to digest the last Brussels reform; let us not throw our farmers out with the bathwater. We welcome the effort to maintain the share for the cohesion policy, and also the strengthening of the Union's social policies, growth and employment policies and also justice and foreign policies. We would call on the rapporteur to extend the logical phasing out mechanism, which already acknowledges the regions affected by the amplifying effect of enlargement, and to apply it to the Cohesion Fund. The European Parliament defended it in Agenda 2000 and we do not understand why, when the Presidency-in-Office of the Council is applying it, Parliament is not now doing so. We also call on the rapporteur to accept Amendment 1, which combats the discrimination that would result from applying the competition and excellence policy in an exclusive manner."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph