Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060118.17.3-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In the text adopted on the financial perspective, there are two points that should have been dealt with differently.
The first of these is the sentence which ‘rejects’ the agreement reached at the Council. There would have been more appropriate ways of expressing non-acceptance of the agreement. The second is the manner in which agricultural policy is referred to. The way in which some Member States have received more significant funds from the Union budget via the CAP has hampered the progress of the European project, blocking more appropriate criteria for granting funds.
The agreement reached in the Council is a positive one for Portugal. Parliament has every right, however, to seek to start the process of fine-tuning that agreement.
In this process, there has not been any significant about-turn in budgetary methodology, the criteria for the global distribution of funds not having undergone any changes. There must be continued solidarity with the cohesion countries of the south and east. Support for greater competitiveness in Europe must not place currently less competitive economies at a disadvantage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples