Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.24.3-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Without questioning the need to ensure that Community financial resources are being used appropriately and in a timely fashion (which is far from the case), the report makes a few somewhat mistaken and overly ambiguous points.
For example, it should be clarified that the ‘scarce’ resources are defined by the EU. More specifically, they are imposed by the so-called ‘Letter of the Six’ countries, which set the Community budget at around 1% of GDP.
It should also be clarified what is to be understood by ‘negative priorities’ and ‘positive priorities’, without which it is impossible to accept a principle that advocates that these ‘negative priorities’ should be ‘scaled down in order to give way to the most crucial priorities’.
If ‘negative priorities’ mean, for example, the so-called ‘new priorities’ such as realising the neoliberal policies of the ‘Lisbon Strategy’, the security policies of ‘Fortress Europe’ or the militarisation of the EU, we would say that we could not agree more. However, if these are the so-called ‘positive priorities’ and the ‘overall multiannual and strategic objectives’ (as they effectively are), then we are decidedly against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples