Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.3.3-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Treaty provides only for an annual budgetary procedure. It does not provide for financial perspectives. But it is nonetheless quite sensible that the two arms of the budgetary authority agree on a multiannual perspective to permit more sensible long-term and forward planning.
My one criticism of this agreement, seen from the point of view of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is that it is so detailed and is broken down into so many points that it takes much of the flexibility away from the annual budgetary procedure. That said, in terms of overall content it is a good agreement.
Many colleagues have pointed out that the sums agreed are less than what had initially been proposed by the Commission. That, of course, is true. At the same time, however, for most items of expenditure they represent an increase on current levels of EU spending. Sometimes the increases are substantial, as in the case of research and development. That is to be welcomed. The one area that will decline is agricultural spending, by about 7% over that whole period. It may not seem much of a decline, but not just the 10 new Member States but also Romania and Bulgaria will have to fit within that ceiling. That would mean a substantial decrease for the old EU-15. I think the reform of the CAP in this regard has often been underestimated in the debate. The redistribution from agriculture to other items of expenditure is something that should be welcomed."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples