Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-07-Speech-1-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080707.16.1-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you for the floor. Mrs Haug’s report, for which I would like to express my appreciation and thanks, summarises accurately what the Parliament thinks about the Preliminary Draft Budget. Listening to the Commissioner’s speech, I felt that the rapporteur and the Commissioner dovetail together, and this could fill us with a kind of enthusiasm. I have one tiny little problem: Mrs Haug’s sentences were worded with a critical edge, and the Commissioner expressed intentions of reassurance. I am delighted by the intentions, but I would also like to see the figures in a format that is consistent with the intentions.
I would now like to highlight two thoughts from this complex material. The French Presidency, like us, is interested in a strong Europe, but unfortunately right now it has gone away to build it. A suitable budget is needed for this. France understands Europe and has done a lot for it. We hope that there will finally be an end to the lawnmower-style trimming. The Presidency must be aware that every cent spent on underfunded programmes is a waste of money.
The People’s Party wants value to be generated from budgetary expenditure, so it is prepared to act in the interests of greater efficiency, in other words against poorly performing programmes, corruption or expenditure led by internal politics.
The surplus in the agriculture budget is changing due to the impact of global markets. Many ideas have emerged regarding what we should spend it on. I oppose all sudden, unjustified decisions, whether for the 2008 budget or for the 2009 budget. Furthermore, the Union has serious debts in this area. The twelve new Member States will have to wait ten years before they receive the same support as the old ones. So competition will be distorted in the single internal market for a decade. This unfair situation has come about due to a shortage of money. If it now emerges that there is still money in the agriculture budget, there is a moral obligation to redress this competitive disadvantage.
Directing agriculture money elsewhere is an idea that is also supported by some of the leaders of the new Member States, but nobody should be fooled by the pathological compulsion to comply among the post-Communist leaders; it is no longer from Moscow, but from Brussels that they expect the tap on the shoulder.
Among other things, we must face African problems too, since aid within the framework of the agriculture budget, in the form of seeds and fertilisers, has a serious reality. Financial assistance can hardly solve a shortfall of products.
My group will support the tripartite amendment on climate change, and will wait with interest to find out what lies behind the surprising fall in the level of payments. Thank you for your kind attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples