Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.1.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, what is in front of us is very definitely an austerity Budget, or at least it is meant to be one. In agriculture, we are EUR 2 billion below the level agreed in Berlin, which is itself EUR 10 billion below the previous guideline for agriculture, which has not yet been repealed. We are on EUR 20 billion, lagging behind EUR 126 billion. Every year, we repay billions of euro. Parliament must, then, perform its function of making the greatest possible reasonable political use of the Budget that we have been promised. That goes for agriculture as well, and I am grateful to Mr Färm for taking up the essentials of the suggestions that the agricultural sector has made to him.
It is precisely in the agriculture sector that there are disputes. Commissioner Fischler takes our suggestions on board while, on the essentials of conversion, going from the first pillar to the second. He wants to convert some of the agricultural budget to be spent on enlargement, but what happens? It unleashes a discussion on savings in which you, Mrs Schreyer, are also participating, and, if I may say so plainly, I consider it a sham debate, as agricultural savings are not at all the point at issue. Not much money finds its way into agriculture and into Europe's rural areas; indeed, to put it bluntly, it flows only in the wrong channels. Great tasks lie ahead of us, and reforms cost money. Once the reforms are underway, we will not be able to get back to talking about savings if we then have an austerity budget in front of us anyway. That means that we have to achieve a balance between the first and second pillars if the reforms are to gain acceptance. We will not support radical cutbacks within the first pillar.
I agree with you that it is easy to spend other people's money, and it is clear that the net recipients have quite different ideas about this from the countries that are net contributors. That must be taken into account, but the debate must not be allowed to end up as a perverse discussion on austerity; on the contrary, it must be about the reforms, and not simply a matter of saying that cuts make for the best agricultural policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples