Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-079-000"

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 (continuation of debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110608.5.3-079-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-06-08-Speech-3-080-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Markus Pieper2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; REGI (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ITRE (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 substitute; CONT (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the 5% increase in the budget is explained by spending on the External Action Service, border protection, the war on terrorism, an increase in development aid, support for research and transnational infrastructure. Overall, this request from Parliament is absolutely justified. However, Parliament is also passing up an opportunity with the Garriga Polledo report. We would have more credibility if we were to show where Europe can be more efficient and where money can be saved. This certainly includes the large number of agencies that enjoy an extremely expensive autonomous existence, and agriculture, where some Member States have still not succeeded in introducing a more market-appropriate flat-rate acreage payment scheme. As the rapporteur for the future of structural policy, I would also say that European cohesion policy should also be included here. Happily, many regions have succeeded in exceeding the threshold for the maximum funding of 75%. However, if there is less poverty in the various regions of Europe, then European solidarity may also recede. The money saved could be better invested in European added value, for example, in a smart link between Structural Funds and transnational networks in the border regions. This is currently under discussion by the Committee on Regional Development, as is a proposal for an intermediate category of 75 to 90% GDP, as suggested in the Garriga Polledo report. Perhaps Mrs Krehl was dreaming if she believed that we had already agreed on a compromise in the Committee on Regional Development. I do not believe that the temporary Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 is the right body to make recommendations for such an intermediate category. We are making things too easy for ourselves if we simply also define the more prosperous regions as requiring particular support. The way I see it, this is an invitation to waste money. We are leaving the tried and tested phasing-out/phasing-in system but are no longer offering any incentive. We are guaranteeing a permanent subsidy for all regions almost up to a level of average economic strength. There can be no future for a system like this in European regional policy. We therefore need to drop paragraph 73 from the report. Otherwise, the report is acceptable."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"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