Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-13-Speech-2-026"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Draft general budget 2006, as modified by the Council (all sections) - Mobilisation of the flexibility instrument - Draft amending budget No 8/20052
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051213.6.2-026"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-12-13-Speech-2-0272
lpv:speaker	lp:Esko Seppänen2
lpv:spokenAs	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, President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament and the Council have arrived at a conciliation solution for next year’s budget. It came just prior to the negotiations to be held tomorrow and the guidelines for future budgets in the period 2007–2013 to be presented the day after tomorrow. Neither party negotiating the budget wanted to take the risk of allowing these talks to founder on account of the 2006 budget. There are probably not many Members in this Chamber, apart from those representing the United Kingdom, who, within the context of those talks, would like to see Great Britain’s special rebate continue in the years to come. There are no good arguments for it. Next year’s budget will follow the guidelines indicated by the Council. In payments the 1% limit is to be approached from above, without Parliament being able to defend its own territory. The very fact that there might not be budgetary harmony would, under Article 272 of the Treaty, have given Parliament the use of more payment appropriations than the proposal which the negotiating parties have agreed on. At first reading, Parliament blew up the biggest balloon by increasing Structural Fund payments by more than EUR 3 billion. The Council burst this bubble in conciliation, without any special negotiations or Parliament keeping to its position. It is strange that the Commission did not feel the need to defend its own original proposal, but instead took the side of the Council. We in Parliament will remember this if there is not enough cash in the Structural Funds to make payments. Under the EU Constitution the Union will be militarised to an astonishing degree, even though no EU Constitution yet exists nor will ever exist in the form which was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. In this way the EU will increase its powers, even though the Member States have not legally bestowed them. Our group takes a very critical view of next year’s budget. It may be that some members will agree with the proposal to reject it. We want a more social and less military Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph