Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-062"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management – Conclusion of the IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"lv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060517.3.3-062"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-17-Speech-3-0632
lpv:speaker	lp:Valdis Dombrovskis2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-03-11)3 substitute; ECON (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Jaunais laiks (2004-07-20--2009-03-11)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-03-11)3 member; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-03-11)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote at the European Parliament will adopt the interinstitutional agreement reached on the Financial Framework for the 2007-2013 period. This will be one of the most significant and far-reaching votes in this part-session. The interinstitutional agreement reached provides for a sum of EUR 864 billion for the next Financial Framework, or 1.05% of the European Union’s total national revenue. This is significantly less than the amount originally supported by the European Parliament, and as a result it will be necessary to reduce the amount of funding available for strengthening EU competitiveness, for science and trans-European networks and for EU regional policy, as well as for other areas. Unfortunately, at Council the tone of the debate was set by six countries whose only goal was to reduce the amount of expenditure in the EU Financial Framework to 1% of the European Union’s GNI. The compromise reached, however, has various positive features. Firstly, there is the flexible approach to setting a ceiling on amounts to be received from EU funds, as advocated by the European Parliament in its resolution. As a result, Latvia and Estonia have been allocated additional resources from EU funds over and above the ceilings laid down, and Lithuania has been allocated additional resources in order to deal with programmes connected with the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant. Secondly, there is the calculation of the ceilings, using each Member State’s individual economic growth forecast. Thirdly, there is the agreement to allow the use of Structural Funds resources for accommodation projects. The limit of 2% of total Structural Funds resources, which is identical for all the new Member States, is, however, difficult to understand. For example, it is obvious that heating homes is a much more urgent issue in countries with a harsher climate, such as Estonia and Latvia, than in southern countries such as Cyprus and Malta. Therefore, this unified approach is unjustified. Fourthly, there is the gradual replacement of the n + 2 rule with the n + 3 rule. Of course, the application of such a rule to the Cohesion Fund is still open to doubt. This agreement, however, is extremely necessary, first and foremost for the new Member States, and for that reason the European Parliament displayed a flexible attitude to the total amount of EU funds."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph