Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.1.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, let us not lose sight of the fact that the Färm report is about giving Parliament some guidelines for the conciliation that will take place on 19 July. If this year's conciliation is anything like last year's then I for one have no desire to attend. I can find something far better to do on a Friday than sit there facing the Council. We make our case on the three areas of discussion and the Council then ignores everything. Those three areas are agriculture, fisheries and CFSP.
As regards agriculture we can make the points made by our colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture, especially the priorities which they see for agriculture, and we can talk about category 2 and the CFSP. I would like to pick up a point made by Commissioner Schreyer – and this is what I heard through the English interpretation, not the Finnish interpretation – when she said that EUR 59 million would be needed and the flexibility instrument would have to be used. One point is that we do not yet have a common fisheries policy. If and when we do have one, that will be a problem for next year. However, we still have the problem of the EUR 27 million and I await with interest to see what the Council will do with that sum on 19 July. Once we know the Council's intentions, then we can make some decision as to what to do ourselves.
The third aspect is the CFSP. As Mr Titley said, we will be supportive of a lot of the things that have been mentioned, but the increase of EUR 10 million in the CFSP means that something else in category 4 has to give. That is a dilemma for us.
There are areas where I would hope we can get decisions on 19 July, which makes it worthwhile for me at least to go. That will be on category 5 and probably as regards the category 4 flexibility instrument if there is going to be such a thing. It is obvious that the Council will never agree to a new flexibility instrument, but if we can get some agreement on using the existing emergency reserves in a similar way for category 4, which would be by a codecision procedure, we may make some headway.
But category 5 is the big area. It is obvious that Council will want us to agree at their first reading to their proposals for category 5. I do not think that is possible but if we could get an agreement as to what we want to do throughout the year, then we can come to some conclusions.
We should also give serious consideration to frontloading for next year in category 5. Mr Podestà's report has highlighted underspends in this year's budget. In category 5 last year, EUR 70 million was underspent. On average in category 5, there is EUR 50 million underspent each year. If we can take the underspends from this year and use a global
for all the institutions, then we may find some method of frontloading to save the pains of next year's budget. Hopefully if we can do that, then we will make some progress with the Council and it will be worth going."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples