Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-22-Speech-2-504"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080422.55.2-504"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I am going to be very brief because I did not realise, but basically I already answered a number of questions in my initial speech.
I would like to go back to a point that was criticised by Mrs Carlotti – a very fair criticism, of course – which is that, at a time when we have never before faced so many challenges in terms of development, it should be said that our Member States are reducing their development assistance. In actual fact, we are going to lose EUR 1 700 000 000 - the first time that there has been a decrease. This is a huge sum. Imagine what it might be spent on in terms of hospitals, doctors and teachers for developing countries. Therefore, what the European Council is proposing, Mrs Carlotti, is that each Member State should at least confirm the commitment that it assumed, if you remember, in 2005, and agree to produce a transitional plan illustrating how they can reach the target set for 2010 and 2015. It is my belief that they will then be pinned down by the commitments they assumed publicly.
The second thing, Mr Hutchinson, is that you are right about the percentages. I would just like to say that, for agriculture and rural development, the 9th EDF was EUR 650 million and the 10th EDF is EUR 1 billion 250 million. It is an increase in absolute terms rather than percentage terms, you are right. Secondly, four countries chose agriculture originally, whereas now there are 25. However, this is not enough, it is still not ambitious enough, and we really had to lobby hard to get some countries to agree to this approach.
In terms of the EPAs, we always have an exchange of views on this subject whenever we meet. However, it is very late now, and this has taken the edge off my enthusiasm for the subject. Despite this, I would simply like to confirm something that you will like. I have always said that those countries which do not sign an EPA clearly will not be penalised from a financial point of view, and that obviously the two things were unrelated. In no way will we use the budget or its implementation as pressure or as a form of blackmail to get them to sign an EPA. We have always said this, and this will not change.
In terms of ratification, I think that it was Mrs Budreikaité who raised this point. Today, all EU Member States have ratified. There are five partner countries which still have to ratify. I hope that this will be done by the end of the month, so that it can all start in June.
I would like to restate my belief that the budgetisation of the European Development Fund would without a doubt allow us to be much more efficient, to have democratic scrutiny, to have involvement in and ownership of this development policy, as we do with other policies. In my opinion, this would offer a much greater scope for action, responsiveness, legitimacy and credibility. I hope that we can make those Member States which are still opposed see sense."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples