Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-236"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financing instrument for development and economic cooperation – European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument – Instrument for Stability – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060517.20.3-236"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-17-Speech-3-2372
lpv:speaker	lp:Frithjof Schmidt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; DEVE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2005-10-27--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, there is indeed consensus in this House on the need for reform of the development cooperation instruments, and that it needs to happen without delay. In this field, there are already 16 different regulations, with differing priorities and running for different periods of time. The existing procedure is complex, incomprehensible and opaque. The Commission’s draft, though, is a model of how not to tackle this state of affairs. Simplification and efficiency are not the same things as the voiding of Parliament’s right of codecision, the systematic blurring of the lines between development cooperation and foreign economic policy in our dealings with industrialised countries, or an obscure legal basis for the use of funds earmarked for development policy. What I have heard from you today, Commissioner, amounts – putting it cautiously – to contradictory statements on these three core issues. Perhaps we can take that as a reason to hope that the Commission might stir itself into life, which, in view of the fact that time is now running out, is precisely what it needs to do; many regulations will lapse at the end of the year, and, if we fail to reach agreement, our legal position will be a precarious one. We want Parliament to vote right now, so that there can be no speculation about it being Parliament that delayed the agreement. It is on that basis that we need to negotiate. The Austrian Presidency of the Council has circulated some good ideas as to what a compromise might look like, and now the Commission really must abandon its tactic of sitting on the sidelines when these points are being discussed and meet us halfway and negotiate a compromise in which simplification and Parliament’s full right of codecision are not seen as antithetical."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph