Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, various comments have been made on the Structural Funds. Having taken part in the debate with, so to speak, the aid of Mr Barnier's ears, I would like briefly to respond to what has been said about the Structural Funds.
The outflow of resources is unsatisfactory at the moment, but it is not quite true to say that major delays are occurring; it is simply that the Member States are, as it were, delaying implementation until the last moment at which the legislature has allowed them to put the programmes into operation. Parliament played its part in enacting the regulations in question.
As regards the debate on the financial framework for enlargement, let me, as Budget Commissioner, reiterate that, in producing its proposals, the Commission has had to be guided by the principle that a proper balance has to be struck between the interests of the present Member States and those of the new ones. It is my opinion that we have succeeded in achieving this balance.
When the proposals were put forward, the new Member States initially complained that they were not receiving equal treatment. Although we provided for direct support to be phased in, the Commission proposal envisages that, as early as 2006, the financial obligations in respect of the new Member States should, in per capita terms by reference to the population, be equal to those in the present Member States, so that there is equal treatment already.
Does the Commission proposal put the present Member States under excessive financial strain?
Let me observe that we have kept strictly to the limits of Agenda 2000, and that we in the Commission have, in addition, proposed that the new Member States should make contributions to the EU Budget from the very outset, something that the Council has accepted. That means that the net cost to the present Member States is even less than the amount stipulated in Agenda 2000 as the maximum burden resulting from enlargement. I think it is important not to lose sight of that.
Let me emphasise one more thing. The reports we are considering, and our debate today, sometimes give the impression that the costs of enlargement will be borne only by the present net contributors. That is false. All the present Member States will be paying the same amount in relative terms towards enlargement, leaving out the special arrangement for Great Britain. The same effort, though, is called for as an expression of solidarity. As Member States differ in size and gross domestic product, that of course means in absolute terms that 80% of the enlargement costs will in fact be borne by the five largest Member States: Germany, Great Britain, Italy, France and Spain. But this is a joint effort for the sake of solidarity, and the financial aspect is of course of great importance in public debate, and also in debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it must not be forgotten that this debate is not about whether or not to build a new stretch of motorway, but about the unification of Europe. It is about the stabilisation in Europe of peace, democracy and the rule of law. One cannot put a price on values such as these."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples