Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-572"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100921.20.2-572"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-21-Speech-2-5732
lpv:speaker	lp:Göran Färm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2012-10-15)3 substitute; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-11-11--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3 unknown; Arbetarepartiet- Socialdemokraterna (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would like to say a big thank you to Mr Böge, who took on board the ideas from the other groups and produced an excellent report. I think we all agree that the Treaty of Lisbon requires a number of technical amendments, but the important point is that the problem is not simply about technical adaptation. For us in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, it is now that we will see whether or not we believe in Europe. EU cooperation is not a residual item to be considered once national policies have been decided. If we are serious about the Treaty of Lisbon, new tasks need to be financed. If we are serious about Europe becoming a world leader in research and development, climate, energy and green jobs and about it having more of a common foreign and security policy, we cannot simply eliminate this type of expenditure as soon as there are national budget problems. Projects such as ITER, climate policy, a new common foreign policy, the proud flagship projects within EU 2020 or a future enlargement – all of this cannot be financed within the current framework. The expenditure in the EU’s budget is not merely a cost; it provides vital added value for the Member States. If we take advantage of the potential options, it can even reduce the pressure on the national budgets, and then the EU’s budget can become an opportunity, not merely a problem. It is therefore vital that the Commission and the Council now have the courage to carry out the mid-term review of the ceilings in the EU’s current long-term budget, something they have been promising for a long time, but have not done yet. I would actually like to finish by putting a question to both the Council and the Commission. You really need to explain how you can simply disregard an interinstitutional agreement that requires an ambitious mid-term review of the long-term budget. It does not inspire confidence in the forthcoming negotiations. What was your reasoning behind quite simply disregarding the international agreement? That is my question."@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