Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.20.2-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to start by thanking Mr Goepel and Mr Bösch. They have done an excellent job, as someone already said. In this debate, it is not just about the subject of voluntary modulation but mainly about parliamentary democracy, in other words what are this Parliament’s rights in the area of rural development, and suchlike. I should also like to thank Commissioner Fischer Boel. She has always approached Parliament with an open mind and even in the individual talks, she invariably spoke frankly.
A great many things have been said. Why am I opposed to the system of voluntary modulation? Firstly, because it strikes at the roots of the common agricultural policy, which is wrong, and, secondly, because it trifles with Parliament’s budgetary rights.
The Commission has to steer a course between the Council and Parliament. In May, we drew up financial perspectives, in which Parliament clearly stated its opinion on this voluntary modulation. The Commission proposals are no more than a reflection of the Council’s opinions, which is something I find reprehensible. Parliament’s wishes have hardly been taken into consideration. Something that is beyond me is that, at a time when everyone in Europe talks about involving the citizen in Europe more, the Commission completely ignores Parliament’s position!
I am pleased with the Commissioner's words when she implied at the end that a compromise was possible. Of course, Parliament would be happy with a compromise. We too are in favour of rural development, but we are also in favour of these common markets. We need to find a solution on the basis of these two key concepts. Is it possible, as was the case in the past, to make an exception for certain countries? Is it possible in future to make more intelligent use of the compulsory modulation and gear it towards certain wishes, as Parliament has formulated in the past? This could, for example, be done with this Health Check. If the outcome of tomorrow’s vote is that Parliament’s position is confirmed once again, then the time has come for the Commission to take the initiative for a compromise that is realistic and acceptable to the Council and Parliament. Indeed, the rights of Parliament and of the Council in the area of rural policy are exactly the same and the Commission would do well to take Parliament’s views into account."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples