Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050607.25.2-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, a much-heard argument against the Constitution in the Netherlands was our excessive contribution to the European budget; why, indeed, should we be the largest net contributor, while four other Member States are richer than we are? With this resolution, we are indicating that a solution must be found – and soon – to our unfair and unequal position. We want a proportionate contribution for every country, not just for the Netherlands. The Dutch ‘no’ to the Constitution illustrates that things should be different in Europe: not less, but different. This goes hand in hand with the budgetary restraint proposed by Mr Böge, which we very much appreciate for that reason.
This also means that we consider the alternative proposed by the Group of the Greens as too expensive and too supra-European, but nor do I regard the 1% proposed by the six as a justifiable starting point. It is not crucial whether the percentage is 1% or 1.07%; what matters is what the money is spent on and what the benefit is of regulating this at European level. We do not want a more expensive Europe with more of the same, we want a different Europe, a shared and social Europe. Currently, too many European funds are still being channelled to the relatively rich regions, agricultural subsidies account for nearly 45% of the budget, and – as I am sure you are familiar with our position in this respect – we waste EUR 200 million a day on meetings in Strasbourg.
We must free up more funds for a safer and more social Europe, more cofinancing of agricultural policy by the old Member States and the abolition of agricultural export subsides with immediate effect. All of this can generate more funds for a safer and more social Europe. There are currently insufficient funds available for many regions, educational exchanges, including for senior secondary vocational training, knowledge and employment, promotion funds for national plans to create new jobs in regions threatened with delocalisation, vital rural and nature management, border control, security in Europe and the fight against global poverty, which brings me to development cooperation.
The Commission has suggested lumping development aid, external policy and economic cooperation together, an idea to which Parliament is unanimously opposed; the report demands these to be split up. We also demand that the Millennium objectives be given a central place explicitly at the heart of development policy. Today, one in five people have no access to basic education and health care. We want this to become a central concern in the policy. The minimum amounts in the proposals are minimum amounts, 35% of which must be spent on basic education and basic health care. If we made those choices, Europe would help make the world a safer place, and Europe could make the difference in terms of this social dimension, both in the EU and elsewhere. That is what this House as a whole wants."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples