Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-325"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-10-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget as modified by the Council - all sections - Draft amending budget No 3/2010: Section III - Commission - BAM (Banana Accompanying Measures) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101019.20.2-325"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-10-19-Speech-2-3272
lpv:speaker	lp:Reimer Böge2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2009-09-30--2012-09-09)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, with regard to what Mr Vanhecke said, I am tempted to say what a low insurance premium this is for Flemish EU citizens, because the EU guarantees peace, freedom, prosperity and hopefully also respect and tolerance for everyone in the European Union. We are debating the 2011 budget at a time when we are consolidating public budgets. Even though the structure of the European budget is not, of course, at all comparable with the structures of the national budgets, we also need to be restrained, and we must nevertheless talk about areas of focus for the future. This is indeed where the balancing act lies. The refusal of the Commission and the Council to carry out a review and revision would result in a late entry into force of the budgetary aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon. At a time of globalisation when it is a question of the economic and political survival of the European Union, this is not an adequate response to questions concerning the future. In the conciliation, we will finally have the opportunity, I hope, to talk sensibly and equally about added value and subsidiarity, about positive and negative priorities and, at the same time, about the urgent political requirements. Alongside this, we also need to discuss adjustment of the budgetary interinstitutional agreement (IIA). We need to agree on a procedure for how we will, in future, discuss and decide on the multiannual financial framework together. We need more flexibility on the basis of points 21 and 23 of the IIA. Furthermore – my apologies Commission – if your document states that the utilisation of the EU budget for the stability mechanism represents an innovative use of the EU budget, I would say that, in principle, this represents a circumvention of Parliament. That is something that we will also have to work on. I have a final and very important comment to make to the Council. You are complaining that we have made reductions in connection with ITER. However, we want a reliable multiannual solution for ITER, but you should not complain about current cuts while the management structures of ITER are poor. This needs to be sorted out first and then we will find a sensible solution, but not one that is divided into small portions and distributed over three years."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph