Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-193"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Broad political framework for the next financial perspective: Making Europe prosper – policy agenda and budgetary means for an enlarged Union 2007-20132
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040210.9.2-193"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-10-Speech-2-1942
lpv:speaker	lp:Francesco Fiori2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr Prodi, it is difficult not to agree with the situation as you have described it here today. I have two doubts, which I am sure you will be able to solve: first of all, I come from a long history of militancy in a party that must surely remind you of something, and during that time I have learned that too much realism in politics often means the start of conflict. It seems to me that your request to freeze at 1.24%, that is to say at the current level, the amount of GDP allocated – an allocation which, inter alia, is still based on 12 countries, whereas we are now 25 and will probably continue to expand – is a position lacking not only in ambition but also in courage, and I base that criticism on two facts. Firstly, we have just approved a quick start programme for public works designed to relaunch the idea of Europe and the single market, in which we need the Member States to be involved and to provide resources, which is why I find it extremely difficult to understand the position of the six Member States that have called for a reduction in the amount allocated. Secondly, in any negotiations, sticking to a position knowing that some of the Member States do not agree with the reference to 1%, appears to me to be quite a complex negotiating position from a tactical point of view. The second doubt concerns the timing. The current financial situation is programmed up to the end of 2006; the Commission must present a proposal before July 2005 and the agreement must be reached before May 2006. So then, why the urgency? So that we can rush things through in a Parliament whose mandate is about to expire? As Mr Wynn correctly pointed out, our Parliament has an extremely important role to play, but that role will be played by the Parliament to be elected on 13 June."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph