Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-356"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2007 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060517.23.3-356"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-17-Speech-3-3572
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, our group has demonstrated its dissatisfaction with the financial frameworks for the period 2007-2013 by voting against the adoption of Mr Böge’s report on today’s plenary. The main reason was that the low level of appropriations did not reflect the needs that our group saw as vital to developing positive European programmes. The new financial frameworks are thought to be backward-looking in Mr Elles’ report too. We want to see more cohesion, more science and research, more concern for the environment, and more social welfare. Our group, however, does not feel any need to militarise the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy. Militarisation was one of the Council’s main areas of focus in the new financial frameworks and the Council also secured financing for it in the new Interinstitutional Agreement with Parliament. Although the EU Constitutional Treaty was rejected, the Commission and the Council may start to develop a common foreign affairs administration for the Union. That would mean an increase in the powers of the Union at the expense of the Member States. Sovereignty in foreign policy is one of the main hallmarks of an independent state. Regarding the Lisbon Objectives, our group has condemned their limited scope regarding social welfare. They only address the needs of companies, and not the needs of their employees. The Commission’s proposal for a special Globalisation Fund is a disappointment, in that a condition of Community aid is mass lay-offs, where at least 1 000 workers lose their jobs. Neither does our group support the Commission’s approach known as the information policy. The Union’s institutions are using money for the dissemination of information for propaganda, instead of looking in the mirror and trying to find out what the problem is when the public criticises the Union. There will be nothing wrong with the mirror, either. We must set about preparing to draft and implement the multiannual programmes fast; otherwise the year 2007 will see a dramatic underutilisation of many appropriations."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph