Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-164"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Presentation by the Council of draft general budget - 20042
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.5.2-164"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-1652
lpv:speaker	lp:Esko Seppänen2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Vasemmistoliitto (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the grand total for next year’s budget for an EU of 25 countries will fall to less than 1% of the total GDP for the Member States. The Union does not seem to have any ambitious plans to support social cohesion between Member States. Many new Member States, or at least their nationals, will be disappointed in their expectations, when there is no manna from heaven for them after all. Differences in standards of living cannot be reduced without money. The Commission is underrepresented in this parliamentary debate. I would have liked to see at least Mr Michel Barnier and Mr Chris Patten here, without in any way meaning to disparage Mrs Michaele Schreyer’s expertise. In relation to next year’s budget I would have liked to hear these Commissioners speak about the Commission’s plans to reduce outstanding commitments on the basis of the ‘sunset clause’. The President-in-Office of the Council had no clear idea regarding a reduction in outstanding commitments. The Commission should have. Our group in the cohesion countries would like to clarify on the basis of what condition of the ‘sunset clause’ the outstanding commitments to be cancelled have come about. If they have come about owing to the inaction of the Commission, that is a matter of failing to carry out the will of the budgetary authorities. If they have come about through miscalculations on the part of Member States’ governments, then cutting them is justified. Member States have to obey the rules, and we demand an explanation of how the outstanding commitments have come about. Reconstruction aid for Iraq will probably be charged to next year’s budget. We are to have the same sort of division of labour as in Afghanistan. The United States of America, in this case aided by Prime Minister Blair, attacks and destroys, and the EU pays for the reconstruction. Our group takes a very critical view of that. We want instead to use Union finances for the reconstruction of Palestinian targets destroyed by Israel. There has been no oil war going on in Palestine. Objects of criticism by many members of our group in the end are the expenditure associated with the common foreign and security policy and the funding of Europe-wide political parties. One feels the EU is pushing for liberalisation of the markets and the development of privatisation, and hence, the neo-liberal ‘made in the USA’ policy."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph