Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.3.3-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Parliament put its full trust in Mr Böge to negotiate an acceptable financial perspective package for the European Union.
The Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, which will be put to the vote today, provides for great advances in the field of budgetary discipline and Parliament’s budgetary rights. The question is whether these improvements are going to compensate for the serious deficits that exist in relation to figures.
The European Parliament’s negotiating position expressed in the Resolution of June 2004 was the last compromise that was truly acceptable to the political groups and we therefore approved it unanimously. Since then, we have had nothing but bad news from the Council: a bad negotiation, a failed one, during the Luxembourg Presidency, and another negotiation during the British Presidency that ended with an agreement that everybody considers to be insufficient.
On that basis, the European Parliament and our rapporteur embarked upon an impossible battle: to raise the figures to acceptable levels in order to maintain a positive impetus within the Union and its programmes. It was not possible and the final round of interinstitutional meetings has led to a final result practically identical to that indicated by the European Council, with 1% of the budget, which is what the ‘letter of six’ originally called for, and with negative consequences in terms of cohesion and rural development.
Surprisingly, the head of the governments which will suffer most from this reduction, mine in particular, did not do much to prevent that failure. The final decision is in the hand of the parliamentary groups and the national delegations, which in any event will draw whichever conclusions they consider most positive for the future of the Union.
The majority of my group is going to vote in favour of this financial perspective. I would like to end by reiterating what everybody is saying about our rapporteur, Mr Böge: if we had to name a rapporteur again for the negotiation, we would name Mr Böge again a thousand times over. Had it not been for him, the Agreement would have been much worse."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples