Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.13.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Wohlin’s written reservation concerning Mr Böge’s report, together with Mrs Goudin’s speech in Parliament on 7 June 2005, helpfully sum up why the June List has chosen to vote against this report. We support the Swedish Government’s and the other five countries’ demand that the EU’s budget should not exceed 1.00% of gross national income, be it in payments or commitments. The EU must fulfil its commitments towards the ten new Member States, but room is made for this expenditure within the present expenditure framework. The difference between our demand for 1.00% and the European Parliament’s (and the Commission’s) proposal lies in the fact that the EU-15 (with the exceptions of Greece and Portugal) have, in particular, to forgo aid from the Cohesion Fund. The June List welcomes the initiative in terms of cofinancing and hopes that this will open the way to future renationalisation of, for example, agricultural policy. We also support the idea of a correction mechanism to compensate those countries that, under the present system, account for a disproportionately large proportion of the EU’s income. The correction mechanism will hopefully also be an alternative to the British rebate.
By rejecting the Constitution, both France and the Netherlands have shown that they prefer less, rather than more, supranationalism. A Swedish veto in the Council against a bad compromise is a better alternative than a new long-term budget. A vote against this report is an emphatic vote in favour of increased subsidiarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples