Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000330.4.4-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The French Members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group reject the Haug and Ferber reports on the guidelines for the budgetary procedure. They reflect political choices our delegation finds unacceptable. We condemn the priority accorded by the rapporteur to the financing of policies newly introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Union for a Europe of Nations Group denounces the federalist integration promoted throughout this report, which calls for growing Community powers in justice and home affairs.
Our group likewise condemns the desire expressed by the alliance of the large Socialist, Christian Democrat and Conservative groups in the European Parliament to use agriculture, the appropriations under heading 1 of the financial perspective, as a source of financing for areas now falling within the remit of European Union ‘foreign policy’. We consider it iniquitous to seek to finance the reconstruction of Kosovo on the backs of the farmers, and unacceptable to try to make people believe the problem should be framed as a conflict of duty. Such trickery deserves to be denounced. On the contrary, Europe must maintain agricultural spending and possibly moderate spending on other budget headings, where there are margins.
In fact everyone now agrees in acknowledging that the EUR 360 million sought for Kosovo for the year 2000 represents a sum, a godsend for some people, that this region of former Yugoslavia, with ever-growing centrifugal forces at work, is in no position to assimilate. It can also be observed in this region of Europe that the donors other than the European Union countries, in their reluctance to shoulder their financial commitments, starting with the United States, are taking the view that the money is arriving too late and coordination is poor. And this is at a time when the Balkans is still a veritable powder keg where there is increasing evidence that trends are moving in the opposite direction to what we were hoping and the sound of tanks is more often heard than the sound of mechanical diggers.
Similarly, regardless of the substance of the agreement, the Union for a Europe of Nations Group denounces the rethink of last year’s Berlin Summit, represented by the ongoing demands for revision of the 2000-2006 financial perspective and the various headings, at a time when there are no precise figures for the European Commission’s ambitious programme for the Balkans (EUR 5.5 billion). There are no justifiable grounds for this demand for revision of the financial perspective and, assuming that the 2001 budget is adopted with the maximum amounts authorised in Berlin, that would permit a 5-6% increase in the available sums. It is right to oppose this poor solution and, acting responsibly, especially on behalf of the voters who gave us their support, we must certainly ensure that the budget for Europe remains in line with the evolution of national budgets, in particular as regards payment appropriations.
The Union for a Europe of Nations Group is equally opposed, out of concern for consistency, to any annual financing of the EUR 5.5 billion sought for the Balkans by increasing the ceiling on external expenditure by Europe and lowering the ceilings for the agricultural headings, on the deceitful pretext that the appropriations would not be taken from agriculture, but that it would be appropriate to release margins for 2001 and 2002. It should be remembered here that, in 2003, the mid-term analysis planned at the Berlin Summit in the context of Agenda 2000 will be known. There is a great risk that, when the time comes, this dubious practice will be claimed by many as an acquired right, and it will therefore constitute an extremely dangerous precedent as far as the farmers of our countries are concerned.
The Commission’s figures for the Balkans are highly political and do not correspond to any specific study, while, for its part, the Council of Ministers thinks it is possible at the moment to finance the programmes and aid for the Balkans within the ceilings of heading 4: ‘External actions’.
So, first of all, and with great urgency, indeed before the draft budget for 2001 appears at the end of April, we must demand and obtain from the European Commission precisely calculated estimates for real needs, as well as strict multiannual budgetary planning, respecting certain conditions. It is unacceptable and irresponsible that, ten months after the end of the conflict, we still do not have any reliable estimates of the region’s needs.
In conclusion, let us bear in mind that the European Union’s budget for heading 4 on external actions is far from representing just the concerns of Europeans, concerns which do not seem to be reflected in the budgetary guidelines. Taking natural disasters as an example, it is deplorable that there should no longer be specific reference to vital reforestation. Thus, the importance of the position of France, the country which suffered the most during the recent storms, is being dramatically played down, and likened to other situations with which it has nothing in common."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples