Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-13-Speech-1-168"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Support for rural development by the EAFRD – Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the CAP (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061113.20.1-168"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-13-Speech-1-1692
lpv:speaker	lp:Kyösti Virrankoski2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2007-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2006-12-31)3 member; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Suomen Keskusta (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Mulder and Mr Goepel, for their excellent reports. Voluntary modulation is a bit of an oddity, something which has never been tried before in the EU’s common agricultural policy. The conclusion adopted by the European Council that a Member State may cut a farmer’s direct aid and marketing payments by a maximum of 20% was both unexpected and very badly formulated. The European Council decided that even export aid could be cut. Luckily, the Commission did not go along with this totally unrealistic proposal. First of all, the cut would not be based on any objective rules but would merely be the result of high-handedness on the part of a Member State. It would lead to inequality among farmers and would distort competition. It would amount to an arbitrary additional tax on farmers. Secondly, it needs to be made very clear that the cut would not increase resources for rural development in the countries concerned. This additional funding would not be affected by national cofinancing as contained in the Regulation on rural development. A Member State could use modulated cash in place of its own national funding and thus reduce it. It would then of course be a case of a direct payment of agricultural aid to the Member State’s Ministry of Finance. How could the European Parliament deal with discharge as regards such a transfer of funds? Voluntary modulation would entail moving funds from the EU budget’s compulsory expenditure to non-compulsory expenditure. That would mean that the interinsitutional agreement would have to be altered. The Council would thus be in violation of that agreement six months after it was concluded. The Council would therefore not be a reliable partner in the agreement. For these reasons I warmly welcomed Mr Goepel’s suggestion that Parliament should reject the proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph