Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.3.2-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the PPE-DE Group accepts Mr Costa Neves’s budget guidelines with great satisfaction, principally, because they clearly demonstrate to the Commission and the Council the course that we wish to take in drawing up the 2002 budget.
We have always argued that interinstitutional cooperation is the best way to make progress in a budgetary negotiation. We have even argued this at the most tense moments in relations between the Council and the European Parliament. Nevertheless, experience tells us that clear and very specific guidelines promote consensus in this House. That is why there are so few amendments and, furthermore, they promote the message which we must send at the beginning of the process, above all to the other wing of the budgetary authority.
Also, adjusting the financial perspective because of the lack of implementation of the 2000 budget has become a crucial issue for Parliament. The consensus proposal presented by the Commission satisfies the two concerns of both budgetary authorities: firstly, it does not raise the overall figure for appropriations until the end of the programming period, as the Council wants, bound as it is by the budgetary limitations of the Member States; and, secondly, it transfers most of the commitment appropriations until the end of the period, which favours compliance with the Berlin agreements, which is what this Parliament demanded.
We therefore hope that the Council can give the green light to this proposal, on which, through the Committee on Budgets, this Parliament has already expressed its favourable opinion. It is true that modifying the scale of commitment appropriations could create certain negotiation problems for the Commission with particular Member States, especially in relation to programmes yet to be approved in Objective 1. However, the agreement we may reach envisages a further month of negotiations between both institutions and also provides a further four weeks to approve these new programmes in Brussels, especially those which relate to Objective 1.
Ladies and gentlemen, I repeat that the worst option would be not to have the opportunity to rebudget, because that would mean losing more structural appropriations, which were possibly going to be lacking at the end of the period. If the Council reaches an initial agreement today, we should not have any problems reaching a final agreement and, in any event, I repeat, we have sufficient time before 3 May for this agreement to come to fruition.
We would like to thank the Commission for playing the role of mediator between the other two institutions. On occasions, we in this House complain about the Commission’s lack of initiative, trapped as it is between two other institutions which hold different positions, and having very little room for manoeuvre. But what we can never deny is the Commission’s capacity for mediation and compromise in order to produce reasonable proposals.
I would finally like to congratulate Mrs Buitenweg on her guidelines for the budget of other institutions, which takes the route of consensus, which will be useful for us and will mean that, for her, the negotiation of the budget will be sufficiently fruitful, peaceful and calm."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples