Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-21-Speech-3-049-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-11-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council meeting (22-23 November 2012) with particular reference to the Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121121.4.3-049-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-11-21-Speech-3-050-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Herbert Reul2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; REGI (2012-03-26--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-21--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2012-02-16--2014-06-30)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2012-02-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard some very clever speeches today, and some speeches that rightly explain why we, the European Parliament, and Europe need a specific amount of money. All the various tasks on the agenda have also been correctly and precisely identified. On the other hand, there is this competition, as I think Mr Swoboda called it, among the Member States to see who can save the most. I am not entirely sure whether this is the right way forward or the right kind of rhetoric at this difficult, indeed critical time. I could stand here and give a speech explaining why all this is important. However, I believe that we also have a responsibility to consider how we can find some common ground. What is the best way of moving forward so that we can reach an agreement, ideally in the next few days? The fact is that if European policy-makers fail to reach agreement at such a critical time, this will not only determine whether we have enough funds flowing into our budget. It will also have a wider impact on the markets, politics, and other countries. That is why I believe there is no alternative: we must give some thought to the steps that we need to take to move towards some common ground. President Schulz said at the start that Parliament is showing movement on this issue and will continue to do so. It was a brief comment but in my view, it was a very clever one. The resolution before us shows that we are already thinking about how we can move towards common ground. It is not the case that all our spending in every area is essential and must be maintained at all costs. As with the national parliaments, there is bound to be some leeway. Questions like ‘how much’ and ‘which items’ are the really interesting questions. I would prefer not to argue about the amount of money we receive and whether this should be a bit more or a bit less. I would prefer to discuss which tasks should be on the agenda and how much money we will need for them. Which tasks could be dispensed with, perhaps? Which processes can we look at critically? Is it always the right way forward for the stakeholders concerned – I am thinking of the agricultural sector, for example – if we simply hand out more cash and impose more conditions? It might, perhaps, be more sensible to impose fewer conditions, for this could result in more sparing use of funds in one area or another as well. A compromise means that both sides have to show some movement. We will consider where we can make some concessions. It is not just about austerity in the Member States."@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