Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.9.2-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if you are talking in terms of the method of calculation perhaps being defective, it is particularly category 3 that entitles one to ask whether the revision, which was obviously carried out using certain methods of estimation for the individual categories, might have given a rough ride to agreements in multiannual programmes set up by codecision, so that, where certain outgoings were agreed in the multiannual programmes, these methods of estimation might have a detrimental effect on decisions that had previously been taken in consultation with Parliament. Before such figures are incorporated into the acts, then, one must therefore trace the reasoning behind the question as to whether and to what extent it is necessary to go much further in examining these matters in detail.
The answer given to Mr Colom i Naval's question obliges me to put a second one. Where, in fact, does the Commission stand? After all, it is perfectly clear that the tables and figures from Copenhagen are to be regarded as a minimum to be guaranteed only until such time as there is a policy on the basis of Article 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. I would like to take this opportunity specifically to ask the Commission to do everything possible to prevent the Council from attempting to create precedents through the back door, and doing lasting damage to the institutional structure in matters of Budget law. The procedure over the coming weeks will find the Commission also having to decide whose side it is on."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples