Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-586-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110705.37.2-586-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-07-04)3,3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would, firstly, like to thank the Commission. I think that the proposal demonstrates a new way of thinking and brings a great many of the kinds of changes that we really do need. The positive aspects are, first and foremost, our own resources, which our group leader has already spoken about, and then there are the benefits that Mr Färm just mentioned: research and development, infrastructure, and so on. These are extremely good. At the same time, I believe that it is important to also be able to give an explanation for the items for which we are actually trying to reprioritise European resources, in other words it must be a question of quality when it comes to spending money. Here, we are nevertheless asking for more money, so it is important to be able to explain that we are also reprioritising. In this case, some communication would be a good idea. It may be the case that we in Parliament, together with the Council, could also have reason to review some of our items of expenditure. We must remember that every year we pay back quite a lot of money to the Member States, which we could perhaps avoid and instead reprioritise funds for the future.
I would also like to say that the practice of removing certain items from the budget is not necessarily a good one. One fellow Member said that the draft budget is increasing by 11%. It is not, of course, but in various sections of the media in different countries, various different ideas of how large an increase the Commission is actually proposing have emerged. Here the Commission can look at itself in the mirror, because the proposal is undeniably very complicated. If we take items out of the budget in this way, we should consider how we should communicate this in future. Overall, however, the proposal represents a good start. My thanks to the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples