Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-234"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050607.25.2-234"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, you have had a rich, constructive, but at times contradictory debate on an excellent report that will certainly help us to reach a compromise. However, as your debate – which was certainly not lacking in contradictions – has shown, the Presidency has to manage these contradictions, which sometimes become even greater when they are presented by the Heads of Government or by the ministers of the various governments. From the starting point of these contradictions, we must try to reach a balance between all these elements so that we can finally resolve the matter and reach a compromise.
Thus, the whole of Europe, everyone who is waiting for something from Europe, everyone who is waiting for money to finance programmes that aim to improve competitivity and cohesion, will all be left hanging, and that is not something that will improve the image of Europe just at a time when it needs to be improved and to be strengthened in the eyes of our citizens.
You will therefore understand that this task is not a particularly easy one. Similarly, your rapporteur’s task was not an easy one at all. I note that, on certain points, it has been said that action must be taken on the UK’s rebate. The Presidency completely agrees with this; it has put forward proposals in this vein. Others say the opposite, and bring agricultural issues into the equation. Does this mean that we must reduce the EU’s agricultural policy, with all the consequences that would entail? Do we want the countryside of Europe to become a desert? That is a specific and precise question that needs to be answered. I think that, in any case, Europe needs to have priorities and must have a clearer idea of where it wants to go.
The Presidency, or rather Luxembourg, could have signed the Commission’s proposals very happily. It has problems, however, with the wording of these proposals. Having said that, I certainly do not dispute that they form a very solid base from which to prepare for the future of Europe. Unfortunately, on the basis of these proposals alone, we will not reach a compromise next week. We therefore need to look again for this compromise, to see how and to what extent we can reduce the figures proposed without, in future, depriving the Community budget of its impact, its influence and its ability to guide policy. Certain speakers say that we have cut 40% here, 30% there. Nevertheless, I myself have noted that there is real growth under all the headings. In some cases, this growth may be inadequate, but in others it is quite significant and takes account of the priorities that you as MEPs regard as particularly important.
I wonder where we would end up if there were no agreement, if we stuck with a sort of status quo? According to my information, we would probably end up with a budget or financial perspectives of about EUR 835 billion from 2006. The Presidency proposes more. It is more ambitious; it may not be ambitious enough, but it is more so than the Member States, or at least than a number of Member States are prepared to be.
I agree with the idea that Europe needs to find new momentum. We need to fight, first of all, against demagoguery, against those who claim that too much European money is being squandered. I think that we must not under any circumstances tolerate these claims, which damage not only the effectiveness of Europe, but also, ultimately, our entire project. I think that those debates must not take place; they must be thwarted.
Europe needs solidarity. I completely agree with the idea that it needs greater solidarity. The Europe of 25, the Europe of 27, but also the Europe of 15. But we must strike the right balance in this approach based on solidarity, and that is what we have tried to do; we need to distinguish between rich regions, poor regions in rich countries, and poor regions in poor countries, because they are not quite the same thing. That is why I think it is important to find the right balance that will enable everyone to find his or her way.
Europe must also spend its money more effectively. That is a message that we must convey. Perhaps we should define better the added value of European policies, work more to improve the quality of Community expenditure, concentrate our expenditure more, improve coordination between Community expenditure, European expenditure and national expenditure. All of this will certainly enable Lisbon to progress further. I would, in all sincerity, ask the following question: with regard, for example, to life-long learning, do we really need to pass funds via Brussels to support projects in our Member States? Would it not perhaps be preferable to create a framework, to set out rules and to improve cooperation in defining policies?
It is sometimes necessary to be selective, in order to focus our resources where they can really produce the best results. We all agree with the idea that we need to increase investment in research. We also know that the Community budget cannot, on its own, achieve the objectives we have set ourselves. We need better coordination between Community expenditure, national expenditure and contributions, private funding. I think that this may be a field in which the US could provide an example, if we observe how they succeed in managing their spending better, not only quantitatively, but maybe qualitatively too.
I cannot promise you that the Presidency will reach a compromise. I cannot guarantee that this compromise will be as ambitious as you would like. But I can say one thing: if we do not reach a compromise, the situation could not be worse. It will be worse in the sense that we will not be able to define programmes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples