Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-15-Speech-4-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051215.29.4-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I shall use this explanation of vote as a way of reflecting on the negotiations and agreements on Community budgets.
1. There have until now been more contradictions than anything else in the Council. Running scared, the political forces and major economic interests at the root of so-called ‘European integration’ sound their warnings of the consequences of disagreement between the so-called ‘powerhouses’ of the EU. A second crisis, following the resounding ‘no’ votes delivered by the French and Dutch people to the so-called ‘European Constitution’, would intensify the feeling that the path that they tell us is the only one to follow lacks ‘credibility’. This is why they are calling for ‘agendas’ to be harmonised, not least at the World Trade Organisation.
2. It does not matter how much Parliament glosses over its complicity in the systematic reduction in the Community budget in recent years – surely this reflects the commitments made by the right-wing and social-democrat forces in the Commission, the Council and in every EU Member State – but the (cold) figures are there for all to see. Overlooking its previous proposals, and throwing consistency out of the window, Parliament’s proposal for 2006 is virtually equivalent to what the Luxembourg Presidency proposed for 2007-2013. Experience has taught us that this story is far from over; after all, Parliament has a habit of lauding today what it found unacceptable yesterday."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples