Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.12.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, my group has submitted a motion to reject the 2005 budget and I should like to explain the reasons for this initiative. My group has never argued in favour of a rash increase in the Union’s budget. We are committed to the rigorous management of public funds and, above all, we do not consider the budget to be the only instrument available to the Union to realise its ambitions. In this respect, we wish to highlight, for example, the need for a fundamental reorientation of the missions and operation of the European Central Bank. It remains true, however, that the Union’s budget reflects a political will. The stated objectives must be matched by sufficient financial resources, otherwise the EU’s very credibility is at risk.
Following the increasing pressure being exerted to reduce public expenditure at all cost in accordance with the spirit of the Stability and Growth Pact, we have already had, in 2004, the lowest budget relative to gross national revenue since 1987. Year after year, Parliament has criticised this restrictive tendency, along with the laborious budgetary gymnastics that accompany it; such as the increasing numbers of transfers and amending budgets; the reduction in essential appropriations, such as those intended for developing countries, to be able to finance new demands, for example the contribution to financing for the reconstruction of countries severely affected by war, such as the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; and the misuse of the flexibility instrument . Every year, Parliament criticises this trend and we have again just heard Mr Ferber, Mrs Guy-Quint and Mrs Trüpel echo this dissatisfaction. I propose quite simply that this should be reflected, this year, not only in words, but also in clear and visible action.
In fact, for the 2005 budget, the compromise reached by the consultations held on 25 November, namely EUR 106.3 billion – in other words, not 1.05%, Mrs Guy-Quint, but 1.005% of gross national revenue – is less than the Commission’s preliminary draft, 109 billion, which was itself less than the Parliament’s request in first reading, 111 billion, a request in turn less than the commitments made by the Council, the Commission and Parliament as part of the financial perspectives jointly set in 2000, which set the budget at 114 billion. To indicate that we finally wish to put an end to this systematically restrictive and short-sighted policy on the part of the Council is the first reason for submitting our motion to reject the 2005 budget.
The second reason for our decision is that next year will be the first full year of the Union of 25. The success of this enlargement assumes, in our view, that we provide a budget sufficient to take on the unavoidable costs of interdependence associated with this great project, whilst ensuring that this does not involve abandoning regions or populations in difficulty in the old Member States. I should add that the new efforts, the need for which is accepted by everyone, to support employment, education, training, research and the environment require commensurate funding, unless it is considered that such new efforts are to be limited to just a few profitable niches and a privileged elite. Successful enlargement without bringing the populations of the new and old Member States into competition with one another – that is the second reason why we tabled our motion to reject a poor draft budget.
Finally, 2005 will be the decisive year in the attempt to reach agreement between the 25 on the financial perspectives for 2007-2013. As has already been stated several times, a heavy millstone is currently weighing these negotiations down: the need of the six countries which are net contributors to the Union’s budget to have this limited in the future to 1% or 0.9% of gross national revenue. The Commission has drawn attention, quite rightly, to the fact that this would actually mean a swingeing cut of more than EUR 9 billion in the 2007 budget in relation to the preceding financial year. Where would such drastic reductions fall? On the great works announced with grand pomp and ceremony? On the Structural Funds? A little bit everywhere? Are we going to be ready for action when faced with such irresponsible perspectives?
If we were to accept without a fight a 2005 budget set at 1% of gross national revenue, would we not be, in some ways, falling in line with the mindset of the Letter of the Six? The third reason why we tabled our motion to reject the 2005 budget was to adopt a combative stance in Parliament before it is too late, on the eve of the decisive negotiations on the financial perspectives for the years to come."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples