Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-172"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000705.4.3-172"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-05-Speech-3-1732
lpv:speaker	lp:Joaquim Miranda2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Comunista Português (1999-07-20--2004-01-31)3 chair; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2002-03-05)3
lpv:translated text	". Faced with the task of setting new objectives for the European Union, we consider it essential to carry out a wide-ranging revision of the financial perspectives with special emphasis on Heading 3, “Internal Policies” and Heading 4, “External Actions”. We believe that the new priorities need to be matched to the ‘fresh money’ available. In view of this we fundamentally and above all reject the prospect of cuts in the cooperation policy, as implied in the Commission’s preliminary draft. The same applies to the cuts they propose in the areas of employment and the environment. In the same way, we reject the cut of EUR 300 million for agriculture. Indeed, as regards agriculture, we believe that it is vital to set up a fund to tackle the enormous problems in the primary sector. Accordingly, we agree with some of the rapporteur’s proposals. However, although she does suggest some improvements, they fall well short of what is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, some of the amendments made in the final vote limited and even changed its scope. And that is without even looking at the position on defence policy. For these reasons, we voted against the final version of the report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph