Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-22-Speech-3-301"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Draft general budget 2009 (Section III) - Draft general budget 2009 (Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081022.21.3-301"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-10-22-Speech-3-3022
lpv:speaker	lp:Nils Lundgren2
lpv:spokenAs	member; IND/DEM (2008-05-09--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Junilistan (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this is, in a certain sense, a well worked-out draft budget. The skilled and thoughtful rapporteurs deserve all credit for their work within the current framework. All this is nonetheless completely wrong, however – for what should the EU in actual fact do? In this context, at least two thirds of the money goes on agriculture and on structural funds, including waste and corruption. What the EU should invest money in, for example, large-scale research such as the fusion project in Barcelona, or common infrastructure such as Galileo, or the separation and storage of carbon dioxide etc., are small fry in this budget. What we find here is a Globalisation Fund that now gives EUR 2.4 million to Portugal and EUR 10 million to Spain. In both cases, we are concerned with fractions of a per mille of these countries’ gross national products. There is no reason why they should receive money from other countries in this connection. We have a Solidarity Fund from which EUR 13 million is going to France following the havoc wrought by Hurricane Dean in Martinique and Guadeloupe. Again, this is a fraction of a per mille of France’s Gross National Product. The whole thing makes no sense. We are talking about rich countries that would have no difficulty dealing with these matters, without receiving scraps from other Member States. Why is this being done? I would maintain that it is because it is PR money designed to be used as advertising for the EU. There is no other obvious reason for it. Next time, funds will no doubt go on snow clearance. I repeat: we are on completely the wrong track. We are debating a budget that is technically well designed, but politically idiotic."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph