Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.31.2-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, Council representative, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware that the 2006 budget has numerous peculiarities.
We, too – here and now – can do something for our youth and for their future. Who can be satisfied that European expenditure for the young represents a mere 0.5% of our budget? That is why we must introduce a European youth pact, increasing measures to foster knowledge, training, language learning and access to the employment market.
Discussions are taking place with the members of the Committee on Culture and Education, the Commission and the Council, on the possibility of extending the Erasmus programme to secondary school pupils, of launching an Erasmus for young entrepreneurs and of following up a pilot project promoting the mobility of young apprentices. However, I am also thinking of pilot projects providing access to credit through ethical and solidarity-based financing and measures to prepare small companies to face the new situations defined in the Basle agreements.
Finally, we must agree that the Union’s traditional tasks and priorities have to be reconciled with the new priorities for external action, from the provision of further aid to Afghanistan and Iraq to support for countries hit by the tsunami or other natural disasters. Otherwise, how can we maintain a high and adequate level of financing for the Mediterranean, Latin America, the Middle East and the Balkans, or for development and humanitarian aid measures, for action to combat poverty and the diseases linked to it, for the respect for human rights and the struggle against terrorism – to name but a few major commitments – while at the same time providing what we have promised to Afghanistan, Iraq and South-East Asia, without adequate financial provision under heading 4?
We, the members of the Committee on Budgets, believe that there can be a natural and inherent convergence in these areas between current budget concerns and a positive agreement with the Commission’s stance.
Things which may appear logical, natural and rightful do not always have an easy passage, however. All too often, there are other considerations that take precedence, sectional interests and selfish calculations which prevail over this great joint project, which we can, and must, develop together. Perhaps all it would need is for each of us to take the trouble every day to do a simple little calculation, one requiring no calculator, a very quick sum which always gives the same result, namely a comparison of the costs of Europe with the costs of no Europe.
We shall do our part and I hope that at the end of the process, thanks to everyone’s contribution, we shall obtain a result which is positive for the European institutions.
Above all, it is a bridging budget; while we approve the general principles – at least I hope we do – the debate on the financial perspectives is approaching its final hurdle.
We shall have to take a decision on how much, what and how – in other words to decide whether to resign ourselves to a pared-down, impotent Europe or to fight together so that financial rigour can be combined with adequate resources for the European Union.
The key exists, but we have to know how to use it with courage. The key is the quality of spending, which must be focused on high-value-added sectors and common policies with a European logic and significance.
It is a challenge which – on an annual perspective – we, too, face with the 2005 budget. The principles unanimously approved in the Committee on Budgets – and I take this opportunity of thanking all colleagues and political groups for their constructive input – point in that direction: rigour, transparency, a further step towards simplification and a concentration on priorities.
Our proposals – as I must reiterate to the Commissioner – are consistent with the Commission’s annual strategic plan. We shall obviously see whether, during the course of the procedure, we can continue to remain in step – that, in any event, is our hope – and we shall see if the cautious openness shown by the Council will give rise to any firm decisions.
There are some points on which, quite frankly, I cannot see how or why we should differ. The first is the increased emphasis on rural development as compared to direct support for agriculture; the second is an adequate level of payments under the Structural Funds heading. After so many years of legitimate complaints, expenditure on Structural Funds by states and regions has accelerated sharply. That was what everyone was hoping to see, and is why it would now be illogical to refrain from guaranteeing adequate resources via supplementary budgets, as has already occurred during the year.
The third point is the reinforcement of support for research, innovation, competitiveness and the internationalisation of companies; the fourth is the promotion of measures for information and the knowledge society; the fifth is the implementation of Europe-wide cultural activities and social policies and the continuation of infrastructure programmes developing the great physical infrastructure of the Union.
The final point – which for me constitutes the first on a political level – is lifelong training, education and youth exchange programmes. Young people must be the prime beneficiaries of our measures because without them there is no Europe and no future. Many of you will recall the beautiful words written by a student on the walls of Berkeley university campus: ‘The future interests me because that is where I plan to live’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples