Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.20.2-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, before us is Mr Goepel’s second report on voluntary modulation, which would apply to direct payments for agriculture. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work, both in his defence of agriculture and for his role as watchdog regarding the competence of the European Parliament.
The Commission proposal is based on the decision by the European Council, when it compromised on multiannual financial frameworks. According to the compromise, a Member State could cut direct payments for agriculture by up to 20% and use the money for rural development in any way it wishes. Voluntary modulation would therefore be an additional tax that the Member State could levy against its farmers. On top of this, of course, farmers would be burdened with the statutory taxes in the Member State concerned. The system would reduce their income without in any way compensating them. A Member State could use the modulated sum for rural development in place of its own contribution, so modulation would not even increase the funds available for that.
Voluntary modulation would upset the delicate balance that has been created between the different Member States of the European Union and the regions, and would give their farmers unequal status. It would distort the common market. On the other hand, voluntary modulation would move funds around within the EU budget. In particular, the amounts for, and the relation between, compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure would change. Moreover, the European Parliament would not have any say in this.
The classification of expenditure and the amounts set aside for it are precisely defined in an interinstitutional agreement, so the change would be contrary to this and would mean that the agreement would have to be amended. It is unthinkable that the Council should intend to breach an interinstitutional agreement a full month after it took effect.
The aim of the common agricultural policy is to guarantee stable, clear and equal conditions for farmers in the practice of their profession. Voluntary modulation would conflict dramatically with these principles. The EU’s right to exist, its very legitimacy, relies on fair and balanced policies. Voluntary modulation does not meet these standards.
The EU’s funds should be used for the purpose for which they were intended in the budget. If Member States start channelling EU money to patch up their own budgets, the entire EU budget policy will be undermined. The answer is now in the hands of the Council and the Commission, including the 20% reserve for rural development funds. We would have had the answer a long time ago if the Commission and the Council had negotiated with Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples