Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.9.2-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Böge, I cannot quite fathom what you mean by defective methods of calculation. In Copenhagen, there were lengthy negotiations rather than calculations. Figures were laid down for the internal policy areas as they were for the others, stating how much was allocated. Let me also reiterate that there will be new programmes in the internal policy areas, the Schengen facility being one example. None of the programmes that we have had in the 15-Member EU can be compared with it. Even the programme specifically for supporting the decommissioning of atomic power stations is a new one. In future, all the new Member States will of course be able to participate in the existing programmes – as indeed some of them already do – and approximately EUR 1 billion per annum has been allocated to the adaptation of these.
Further to your question about what is to be done in a situation where we have the Copenhagen resolutions on the one hand, the accession treaties on the other, and then, of course, the Inter-Institutional Agreement, which emphasises the need for a joint decision on the adjustment of the Financial Perspective, the Commission has constantly been committed to stressing this point to the Council. This is again stated in the Copenhagen resolutions. At that time the European Council stated that the Commission, in its proposal, had to take into account the table summarising the outcome of negotiations.
We now know that the results of the negotiations were not easily achieved. The candidate countries, too, engaged in in-depth negotiations not only with regard to the amount to be spent, but also to the structure the expenditure should have. I think this is something we have to respect. It was for this reason, for example, that the Commission took on board these proposals and negotiation results as regards the amount of the Structural Funds in comparison with the lump sum transfers. I consider it very important, and as a very good thing, that we will, as early as next week, have the opportunity to join with the Council in discussing how we should take matters further."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples