Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.4.4-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". We have rejected this attempt to impose a pseudo-constitutional process to legitimise the Convention document and we disagree with the support expressed for the financial provisions it establishes. These provisions seek to achieve a major change as regards substance in relation to the existing Treaty, by including the financial perspective and the budgetary discharge in the so-called ‘Constitution’. In other words, they wish to transform the current interinstitutional agreement and to ‘constitutionalise’ the financial perspective, erecting a more substantial barrier, not only to its revision or modification, but also making approval of the annual budget dependent on the upper limit of the financial perspective, as stated clearly in the reading of Article 52(5) and Article 54(3) and of the provisions of Article III-308.
We have always argued for financial perspectives that safeguard the principle of economic and social cohesion in an enlarged EU and we must not forget that today’s budget is the lowest since 1987, in relative terms, in other words, less than 1% of Community GNI, which makes a revision of the financial perspectives necessary.
As to the amendment relating to the referendum on the results of the IGC, I wish to say that our vote in favour of the referendum is unambiguous and makes it clear that we are against a European referendum or a referendum on the same day as the European elections and that we demand that the constitutional rules of the Member States be respected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples