Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-065"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-04-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2008 Discharge (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100421.3.3-065"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-04-21-Speech-3-0662
lpv:speaker	lp:Markus Pieper2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; REGI (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; CONT (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few comments about the use of European funds in the enlargement process. Here we had to evaluate a special report by the Court of Auditors on the use of pre-accession aid for Turkey. As the Committee on Budgetary Control, we are very disappointed by the findings of the report by the Court of Auditors. In the previous period, funds were spent by the Commission without any strategy or effective audit and, above all, projects had no concrete relation to progress towards accession. Even with the new Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), which entered into force in 2007, the Court is not in a position to assess the effectiveness of the funds spent. Yet here we are talking about EUR 4.8 million up to 2013. At first, a sense of helplessness predominated in the committee. Where and when can we have any political influence on the use of pre-accession aid if the next assessment of the Court only takes place after 2012? The Committee on Budgetary Control therefore calls on the Commission to revise the IPA programme as a matter of urgency. Until progress is assessed, we also call for the freezing of funds to the annual level of 2006. Here, we have the beginnings of a compromise. In addition, we suggest that generally – generally and without explicit reference to Turkey – the IPA must be applied flexibly, including for special forms of membership or cooperation or neighbourhoods or similar options. In the process of accession negotiations, focussing purely on EU Membership may prove to be a very poor investment. Now the criticism of the Greens and the left is that with these demands, we would interfere in foreign policy and Turkey would thus receive special treatment. No, if we do not react to obvious deficits here, then we are ensuring special treatment. If we make exceptions with Turkey, we can also cease work with budgetary control for Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria or Greece. That is, after all, one and the same topic. I call on the Commission not to turn a blind eye, just because it is Turkey. Rather support Turkey’s accession according to the accession criteria that the Community itself has set."@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