Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.1.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Verheugen said that some of what we are hearing about the discussions gives us cause for concern. I can certainly confirm that my own group feels that way, particularly as regards the impact on one of the fundamental rights of a parliament in a democracy.
Discussions are taking place on budgetary rights, the essential right of any parliament, which represent the origins and the starting point of any process of democratisation: the right of Parliament, the directly elected representatives of the people, to make decisions on financial resources. The very foundations of this right are being attacked. I admit that we were not all happy about the outcome of the Convention, because we had, of course, expected more. We had hoped for more democratisation, so as to provide greater transparency for Europe's citizens about who is responsible for what, where the money comes from and how it is spent. More transparency is needed here, and the public have a right to expect it.
In accordance with the outcome of the Convention, we have a financial framework that sets an upper limit and therefore puts a cap on expenditure. This framework will in future be set by the Council, subject to the approval of Parliament. That means that there is a predetermined planning procedure.
When it comes to income, the Council has the last word. Nothing has changed there. We have criticised that, but that is how it is. As regards expenditure, and this is the small step forward that we have identified, in accordance with the Convention's draft the final decision is to be taken by Parliament. This is now being attacked by some Member States and also by the Finance Ministers. What is this all about? The message that gives is that this House is not able to make objective decisions on behalf of the public. What impression do these governments' representatives expect to create in six months' time at the next European elections, if they do not trust their own candidates to vote responsibly on expenditure at European level?
We have already heard the criticism that parliaments do not know how to deal with money. That has always been the case down the centuries. But we have never heard it before from a democratically elected government referring to a democratically elected parliament. This is something new, and it really is intolerable if you take a look at the facts. The rate of budgetary increases approved in some areas – well over 8% in one area decided by the Council, agricultural expenditure, compared with the maximum increase of 2.5% envisaged for the overall budget – do not suggest that the Council, which up to now has been able to decide on its own, is particularly thrifty.
Just look at the Council's administrative budget for next year. The Council is claiming an increase of 20.8% for itself, more than any other institution, in order to build up and enlarge its administration. We, on the other hand, have always kept within our upper limits. We do not need any coaching on how to manage the funds that Europe's citizens entrusted to us properly. We will hold our ground across the board if anyone tries to undermine Parliament's fundamental democratic right to set the budget. They will soon find out that no parliamentarian who takes his job seriously will go along with that. As Mr Brok put it, that really would be a declaration of war on this House.
I would like to thank the presidency for saying that it wishes to respect the outcome of the Convention and to fight for its implementation. I would like to thank all those national governments that are supporting that. But I warn all those who are toying with the idea of attacking this right that they are opening themselves up to accusations that they do not want to use the Constitution to extend democracy in Europe, that they do not want to strengthen or further democracy, but that they want to bypass it and undermine it, by depriving Parliament of one of its central rights."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples