Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.12.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, work on the Union’s 2005 budget is almost at an end. The Commission proposed a budget amounting to EUR 109 billion, the Council proposed a figure of EUR 105 billion and Parliament proposed EUR 111 billion. The final figure is EUR 106 billion. The rapporteurs must of course be thanked for their work, but the question arises as to whether this amounts to success and an appropriate compromise. In fact that is not the most crucial issue at stake. What is much more important is that the outcome is below expectations. I can see other Members of this House share my view. The policy of cuts won the day, despite enlargement of the Union to take in ten new Member States. Wishful thinking prevailed, namely that it is possible to have a larger Union for less money. The agreed level of expenditure may impact on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013, and this is even more worrying. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group’s attitude to the 2005 budget is that it is something that cannot currently be opposed, but we see no reason for rejoicing.
This is also an opportunity for broader reflection. George Kennan observed in the past that Soviet expansion came about because of an inability to solve internal problems. I trust the same will not be true of the European Union. Unfortunately, there are some worrying similarities regarding two issues, the first of which is economic policy. To date, the Union has pursued a policy of cohesion and economic solidarity, helping the less-developed countries so as to promote the development of the Member States as a whole. At present, the concept of cohesion and economic solidarity is being written out of Union agreements. Weakening cohesion policy or doing away with it altogether may lead to differences becoming even more entrenched in the future. This is especially likely if the Lisbon strategy comes to mean giving up on economic policy, that is, achieving the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost, to the benefit of social policy in the more developed countries. I refer to protecting jobs in those countries burdened with excessively high social costs. The second question I would like to refer to is that Europe is unable to define its own identity. Events concerning Mr Buttiglione and the failure to integrate Islamic communities in Western Europe, as referred to recently in
are both relevant examples
as is the question of the text of the preamble
to the Constitution. At the same time, we are continuing to debate enlargement to include Turkey, without taking any account of the fundamental issues dividing the Union from Turkey. The former include social, economic, political and cultural problems. The response to the conflict between the theory of universal standards and particular ones has been to do away with standards of all kinds. Those determined to go to any lengths to achieve a federal Europe without borders, lacking ideological identity and cohesion policy, are acting to the detriment of the Union. They are working slowly but more surely against it than those who currently wish to harm the Union with extremist language. There can only be one conclusion, namely that in future, the Union must come up with a broader ideological identity and make more resources available, so as to implement cohesion and solidarity policy effectively."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples