Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-433"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.21.2-433"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you for your comments. This is not only a coincidence of time and place; a clear link has been established in the debate between the budgetary review and the annual budget for 2011, or even banana accompanying measures. This is coming late, really late. Speaking frankly, we are in the middle of the 2007-2013 financial perspective, with three years behind us and another three years ahead of us.
Thank you for your encouragement, and thank you for being ambitious about the next step, which is the presentation of the future financial perspective. Thank you for being ambitious in discussing both sides of the budget, including own resources (Mr Daul, Mr Le Foll, Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Böge, Mr Dehaene, Mr Abad, Mr Fernandes, Mr Kalfin, Ms Durant and Mr La Via). Thank you for your encouragement to seek flexibility (Mr Garriga) and simplification (Mr Daul).
Mr Eickhout asked the question on the position of the financial transaction tax or activity tax. There is a delicate hint in the annex that the preference is not for taxing movable operations which are easily subject to evasion, but rather corporations, i.e. activity transactions. We do not need to agree intercontinentally to avoid evasion.
Mr Garriga and Mr Surján are disappointed about the figures. There is an annex which gives some quantification and also the impact assessment on cohesion. This is the main point which I had expected given my knowledge of Parliament's position. This is not a revision of the figures for 2011-2013, as was claimed by Mr Böge, Mrs Gardiazábal Rubial, Mrs Haug, Mr Dehaene and Mr Abad.
We cannot simply make adjustments just like that. We need a legal base; we can adjust to Lisbon and we can adjust to EU 2020 strategy on an annual basis. This is feasible and this is an exercise which is ahead of us for 2011, 2012 and 2013, but we cannot do it at one stroke by simply quantifying without a legal basis and introducing new requirements into the budget.
We do not yet know what will come out of the agreement on ITER and other large-scale programmes which should cost more up to 2013. You are disappointed, but this is my reply.
As for agriculture, this is a balanced position. You know, Mrs McGuinness, that there are more radical opinions of what should be done with agricultural spending. There is also a strong political defence. We are here to produce a balanced opinion, because at the end of the day, it is all about compromise and we should have the final agreement of 27 countries.
Thank you once more for your comments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples