Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-037-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-06-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:A new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110608.3.3-037-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-06-08-Speech-3-038-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Haglund2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2012-07-04)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-07-04)3,3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 vice-chair; PECH (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3,3 substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3,3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (2009-07-14--2012-07-04)3,3 member; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who has done an excellent job in collating the views of this House. I am sure that we are all in complete agreement as to the challenges that we face. The question is simply how we will get the funds to stretch, and now we are not only talking about funds in the EU, but also funds in the Member States, and that is a balancing act. In committee, we decided to recommend increasing the future budget by 5%. Five percent sounds like a lot, at least it does if we go home to our own capital cities and explain that we need another 5%. On the other hand, 5% is very little when we consider the challenges that the EU is facing, and when we know only too well that the EU has actually been given a number of new tasks that it really ought to take care of properly, and we cannot do that without funds. However, in order, at the same time, to be credible when asking for more money, we must also have the courage to look at existing structures and existing costs. Our credibility will then increase significantly if we manage to show that we can also reallocate/reprioritise and save money before we ask for more. Now, I am talking about unjustified advantages within agricultural policy as well as the fact that our anti-corruption policy is, to a large degree, not as successful as we always claim it is, and the fact that, to a certain extent, the EU’s administration is rather unwieldy – the very fact that we are here in Strasbourg is an example of this. These are the sorts of things that our group wanted to raise as examples that could be discussed, for this is what will bring us credibility when we later ask for more money. However, we have not always been entirely successful in doing this in this report, which also explains why some of my fellow Members will be pressing the ‘no’ button, or perhaps the ‘abstain’ button, in tomorrow’s vote, even though a large majority of our group supports the report. Many people are, after all, disappointed that we are not able to discuss a new way of allocating existing funds as well. Another issue that we absolutely must address is how we are to finance the EU budget, and in this regard, our group has been very clear. We want a serious debate about what is referred to as own resources, and this is also important in order for us to eliminate the unhealthy elements in the current financing structure: more rebates, unclear and non-transparent arrangements and so on. It cannot continue like this in the future, and in this regard, I hope that we can initiate a constructive dialogue with the Council concerning the future. This is an absolutely crucial issue if the EU budget is to have a positive future."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph