Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-01-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041201.11.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is the first debate on the financial perspectives and, therefore, I hope that we will have another opportunity when the chairman of our parliamentary committee can participate.
The question today focuses on certain issues on which there is undoubtedly no fundamental neutrality: firstly, the participation of the European Parliament, as several Members have stressed, such as Mr Böge – and I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his statement of good intentions – and, secondly, the working timetable.
For many reasons, Mr President, whether the work ends in an agreement in 2005 or in 2006 is important because, if we are obliged to defer the budget, as the Commissioner responsible for the budget acknowledged yesterday, it will be the cohesion policy that pays the price. I would, therefore, like to draw the attention of certain Members to the risk to solidarity in the European Union of having an unjustified showdown between the European Parliament and the other institutions.
We would like to reach an agreement during the Luxembourg Presidency. I would, therefore, like the Dutch Presidency to tell us how work is going on approving the general lines of the reform at the European Council on the 17 December. We are delighted that the Presidency has said that the basis for this debate will be the European Commission's proposal, but how do those of you who claim to be Europeanists intend to deal with the cost of enlargement, expand internal and external Community policies and at the same time reduce the European Union's budgetary spending?
I do not know whether you have a magic wand or the capacity to perform miracles, or whether perhaps you intend to destroy cohesion for the old Member States, in other words, make the poor regions of the statistically or genuinely rich countries meet the cost of the economic development of the poor regions of the new Member countries.
You have less than two weeks to answer these questions if you do not want the Dutch Presidency to be tarnished at the end of its term in office. You should start thinking about how to justify wanting more Europe while spending less money, because nobody understands that. What we do understand very well is that less money means less Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples