Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.8.2-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, most of the members of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group are concerned at the proposals to permanently cut payments to the EU in relation to the Member States’ gross national products. Although this complies with the Financial Perspective for 2000-2006, it is not in line with the EU’s general philosophy. It means the enlarging European Union is limiting the extent to which its funds can be redistributed, in relative terms. In so doing, it is limiting its opportunities for development, assuming funds are still used with the same efficiency. Yet at the same time, by making reference to the Lisbon Strategy, for example, the EU continues to aspire to a growing role in the global economic race. In our opinion this is not a coherent policy, as it effectively consists of stepping on the accelerator and the brake at the same time. In view of our Danish colleague’s reservations, the entire UEN Group rejects the Council’s proposed payment cuts, and calls for an increase, not a decrease, in payments as a percentage of GDP in the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013.
The reduction in payments proposed by the Council under Heading 2 is greater than that under Heading 1. In general this demonstrates the Council’s pessimism, or even distrust, concerning the Member States’ ability to make use of funds, especially the new Member States. This also means a change in terms of ratios, to the disadvantage of development funds.
The reductions in payments proposed by the Council under Headings 1 and 2 are of a plainly mechanical nature, and the fact that they are all round figures is worthy of attention. In this connection, the UEN Group supports the inclusion of the figures proposed by the Commission.
Turning to a third and more minor point, with regard to the growing importance of the EU’s neighbours, and with this morning’s debate on Belarus very much in mind, the UEN Group is opposed to limiting expenditure on the TACIS and MEDA programmes, while at the same time insisting that the way in which these funds are spent must be monitored closely. In order to promote both the values upon which the EU is based and our own safety, we should support trends conducive to building the rule of law in neighbouring countries. Little will be achieved by cutting funding for these aims."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples