Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-485"

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	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101214.36.2-485"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-12-14-Speech-2-4862
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Haglund2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2012-07-04)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-07-04)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; PECH (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (2009-07-14--2012-07-04)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
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, at least we are now having a proper debate with the involvement of the Council’s representative. This debate on next year’s budget has long been about who has done what and why. In many people’s eyes, this has been a debate between the institutions, which, in a way, is a shame, but at the same time, we can perhaps learn something for the future. A month ago, I was rather critical of how, in the Council, you are looking at the future and the possibility of financing the priorities that you yourselves have presented, and by this I am referring, in particular, to the Europe 2020 strategies, in other words, how we are to finance the ambitious targets that we have in Europe. My criticism still stands and I therefore think it may be interesting to look at the budget we now have in the light of this in particular. We have agreed on a budget with an increase of 2.91%, which I personally think is an entirely reasonable solution. If the Council had got its way, the research appropriations would have been cut by around half a billion euro compared with the amount originally proposed by the Commission, and in this regard, I have not yet fully understood what the Council was thinking. Parliament later rectified this in its own version, which is a good thing. This means that, in many ways, we went in a better direction, and even if the figures are the same as those the Council wanted, the content is significantly better than the Council’s 2.91%. I think it is worth noting that, even if we keep the same figures, there have been significant shifts in the budget. Mr Färm took account of flexibility, and in this regard, the Council needs to consider how it intends, in specific terms, to find the money that is needed for the future investments that we have agreed on, because it will not be possible to find it in future years if it continues with the logic it is currently employing."@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