Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.2.4-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As Swedish and Danish Social Democrats, we have today voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal on the EU budget for the budget year 2001. The budget creates a reasonable balance between the need for budget discipline and the EU’s opportunities to implement important activities. In proportion to the Member States’ finances, the Council’s proposal represents the smallest budget for more than 10 years. Parliament wants to increase this somewhat, but we still have a good margin to the budget ceiling.
Nonetheless, Parliament has succeeded in driving through a number of important priorities – especially, increased efforts in the fight against unemployment and poverty, a number of important environmental and equality issues, etc. We have voted against the right’s attacks on the LIFE programme and the European Women's Lobby.
We are firmly resolved to find the funds required in order to be able to provide increased aid for reconstruction and democratisation in the Balkans, including in Serbia, now. Consequently, we call upon the Council to react positively to Parliament’s initiative for a common and long-term solution before the final decision on the budget is taken in December. Revising the budget ceiling for external policy (expenditure category 4) is not an end in itself, but we are prepared to do this if it is required in order to obtain the necessary funds for the Balkans.
We take a critical view of the scope and direction of the EU’s agricultural policy. This needs to undergo more extensive reform in the future, partly in order to provide scope for the expansion of the EU. The EU’s agricultural policy is far too expensive. We are highly critical of the overproduction of agricultural produce and of the fact that the EU is using funds designated for information purposes to sell this surplus. We are also very critical of the extensive subsidy given to tobacco production, which we believe is in direct conflict with the EU’s increased ambitions in the area of public health. On this point, we have voted in favour of amendments that aim to abolish the tobacco subsidy.
We would also like to emphasise how important it is that the implementation of the EU budget is made more efficient, so that we can get to grips with the great backlog that exists in certain areas. The budget system, like the methods for openness, auditing and political control, must now be rapidly improved and modernised.
We, ourselves, have tabled proposals concerning what is known as the Baltic budget line, but have accepted that this will be put on ice for the time being and until such time as an overall solution to the problems within expenditure category 4 has been found. However, Parliament has been delighted to accept the Commission’s proposal to establish new budget sub-headings for local and regional cooperation in the Baltic region within the framework of the Phare pre-accession instrument. We have also voted in favour of an increase in the budget for twin-town cooperation, which we consider to be an important programme for encouraging cooperation at local level within the Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples