Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991117.4.3-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-17-Speech-3-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2000-06-12)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3
lpv:translated text	"At the Berlin Summit, the Council reached an agreement on the amendment of the own resources decision. We agree with the thrust of this decision. By maintaining the own resources ceiling at 1.27% of GNP, the Council sustains the necessary budget discipline within the EU. Another major bonus resulting from the Berlin Agreement is the attention that was devoted to the unfair distribution of the load over the Member States. The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Austria are the Member States currently contributing a disproportionately large sum in relation to their national income, in order to finance the EU. A number of amendments, such as adjusting the financing of the UK rebate and increasing from 10 to 25% the deductions on traditional own resources, reduce the contributions of these Member States to the EU. Following a compromise which was reached with great difficulty, we can accept these adjustments, but they are certainly not what you would call attractive. At present, they are accommodating the four Member States in question. They do not, however, offer structural solutions to the problem of net contributions. It would have been better if a solution had been found in the form of a generic correction mechanism, for example, by introducing a band for national contributions to the EU. We were unable to back the Haug report because it proposes a number of essential amendments which are incompatible with our convictions. The report, for example, advocates rendering the Union less dependent on Member State contributions. The rapporteur’s ultimate goal is complete financial autonomy with regard to the Member States. We, however, support a continuous involvement of the national parliaments in financing the EU. In addition, we voted against the rapporteur’s amendment in which he rejects the increase in the deductions on traditional own resources. This puts enormous pressure on the equilibrium of the Berlin Agreement. To the Netherlands, which has managed to secure this increase in order to reduce its net payer’s position, this is unacceptable."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph