Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-476"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-12-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Parliament's position on the new 2011 Draft Budget as modified by the Council (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101214.36.2-476"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-12-14-Speech-2-4772
lpv:speaker	lp:Isabelle Durant2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Parliament's Bureau (2009-07-14--2012-01-16)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 member; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with Iran (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-president; European Parliament (2009-07-14--2012-01-16)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Wathelet, Commissioner, just a month ago, although we broadly had an agreement on the figures for the 2011 budget, the four large political groups intervened very loudly and forcefully, asking the Belgian Presidency to negotiate with the Council not only the 2011 figures, on which there was agreement, but also a genuine political agreement for the next stage, a political agreement which would allow us to work together, in the form of a convention or something else – it hardly matters – but also with the national parliaments and governments, on the future financial framework and on own resources. Everyone was in agreement. We asked for this at the time, just a month ago, because we thought that we had to guarantee the future of European finances, because we thought that we needed to come to the rescue of the budgets of the Member States, which are all facing difficulties, and because the European Union must have its own resources. Everyone agreed, and I would say that it was said in a very forceful way. One month later, where are we on this? We have gone back to square one. The 2011 budget is about to be adopted. It ignores flexibility and ITER. I have no regrets about ITER, as you know, but on the other hand, the Belgian Presidency – even if it has gone to enormous effort, I admit – is sugaring the pill for us somewhat today by proposing that we make do with a Council statement, with the wisdom of the Commission – though I hope that it will always be on the side of Parliament; that is its proper place – and with the letter from Mr Leterme, the Prime Minister, which actually proposes that we should respect the treaties. It is a good thing that he is not proposing the opposite to us – that would be astonishing. You must admit, therefore, that this is a pretty lightweight proposal, and you must realise that we are a little frustrated. I am not even sure that the Belgian Presidency itself totally believes what it says, although, if the ‘walk in the park’ had lasted a little longer, Mr Wathelet, we might have been able to reach a better agreement, a stronger agreement for the future, which would give us more chance of providing proper guarantees for the future. You have the sense that there is too little here, and I do too. Even so, we will act properly, and we will accordingly approve the resolution, with all its drawbacks, and as for everything else, we have missed an opportunity, but rest assured that we will be there at the next meeting, because the debate on the perspectives is not over."@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