Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.3.3-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Hatzidakis, I go along with your analysis, of course. I formed my own assessment in the same spirit and on the same bases as yourself. I should point out to the House that if the twelve candidate countries were to actually join the European Union right now, then the mean GDP for the Community would drop by 18 points. This would automatically have the mathematical effect of raising regions which continue to be in difficulties above the mean in one fell swoop. It would not, therefore, be fair. We are going to have to find some solution for these regions which would thereby be placed automatically above the Community mean.
Mr Hatzidakis, you tell me more money will be needed. At this stage, I can express only a personal opinion. We have not yet reached the point of discussing the future Financial Perspective. I have only given you a rough indication, and a personal opinion at that. I think that the figure of 0.45 % of Community GDP, which will be achieved in 2006 in line with the Berlin decisions, if we add together the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Funds, pre-accession appropriations, SAPARD, PHARE, ISPA, as well as the appropriations placed in reserve to support the first accessions in 2004, for example, will give a total representing 0.45% of GDP. I see this as a reference point. To elaborate further, my frank opinion is that if we take on board another twelve countries in the state they are at present, then we shall not be able to conduct any credible policy at anything less than this percentage. That is all I can say for the present."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples