Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-425"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2011 budget (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101123.37.2-425"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-23-Speech-2-4262
lpv:speaker	lp:Anne E. Jensen2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3 substitute; TRAN (2009-07-16--2011-05-12)3 member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-07-08--2011-06-30)3 member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to say to both Mr Wathelet and Mr Barroso that I most definitely agree that there should be an agreement. Of course we must have one. That is Parliament’s opinion, too, and it is also why we were so willing to accept the compromise that the Council came up with, because the Council is not in agreement over how big the budget should be either. We accepted the 2.91% increase in payment appropriations. In return, we have to demand that we have the prospect of getting a proper budget in future years. It is a question of flexibility. It is also a question of engaging in a dialogue regarding the budget for future years. This issue of flexibility is a very tangible one. With the aid of flexibility, we have been able to fulfil new requests. We would not have been able to get energy projects off the ground as part of the recovery plan – for example, by linking electricity networks from the Baltic countries with those from the Nordic countries, or linking the gas network in Bulgaria with those of Western Europe, so that Russia is no longer able to cut off our heating – if we had not found the money for this in the agricultural budget. We need to have this sort of possibility of moving resources around in the EU budget. We must, therefore, have flexibility. It is also important for there to be constructive dialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, including with the national parliaments, concerning the EU’s budget after 2013. The European Parliament must not be placed in a situation where we can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the medium-term financial perspectives. There is a risk that we will say ‘no’; there is a risk that it will go the same way as it did with the SWIFT agreement. The EU’s own resources are to be reformed again. It is not a question of creating an EU tax burden; it is about creating a transparent and comprehensible system, without special rules and without rebates, so that we have a system that citizens can understand. We need a debate now, and I am therefore pleased that the Commission has promised to take the initiative and come up with a proposal before next summer."@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