Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-220"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.32.2-220"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, we heard earlier some very statesmanlike things from the British Presidency of the Council about the demands of foreign policy, accompanied by some calculations with virtual figures, but, as regards the compromise that has emerged from negotiations and that we unfortunately have to discuss today, I agree entirely with what was said by Mr Garriga Polledo in his capacity as rapporteur on the amending budget, namely that it does in fact stand in contradiction not only to these statesmanlike utterances but also, for example, to the response to this great catastrophe heralded by the Council conclusions of 7 January this year.
It follows that what we unfortunately have to discuss is a marvellous example of the credibility, of the occasional haggling and of the questionable timescales, all of which evidently exemplify the only response to inevitable and current challenges that the European institutions can sometimes manage. This should be a lesson for all of us as we prepare for the negotiations on the post-2007 budget framework and on the instruments that will be needed in future.
At the outset, the Commission came up with a proposal that envisaged such measures as the use of the flexibility instrument to the tune of EUR 98 million. From a total of EUR 170 million, EUR 15 million have emerged in this amending budget, while the EUR 13 million that we have not yet come up with are to be found from somewhere over the coming months. It is also worthy of note that funds have been reallocated from budget lines that were already intended for this region. The Council, and its British Presidency, cannot escape questions as to how all this can be in line with the great Millennium Goals, to which they, in their statements, have repeatedly affirmed their commitment.
Let me remind you that, as we read the situation, the Council does not exactly appear to have simply goggled like a rabbit confronted with a snake and said: ‘No, we cannot give more than 15 million, or else we will have used up the 200 million in the flexibility instrument for 2005.’ If the N+2 rule had been applied, there would have been plenty of margin available.
While I am on this subject, the point has to be made that it was the European Parliament that said, from the very outset of the negotiations following the Heads of State or Government’s adoption, in 1999, of Agenda 2000, that Category IV was chronically underfunded, in the same way that foreign and security policy and the neighbourhood policy were likely to be chronically underfunded if the Luxembourg compromise for the new Financial Perspective were adopted. With the worst-case scenario in mind, we insisted on the provision of a flexibility instrument and were partly successful in negotiating one. Events have proved us right, for the fact is that unforeseen measures have made it necessary for this flexibility instrument to be resorted to every year, so what I want to say is that the embarrassing situation in which we find ourselves as regards time and resources obliges us to agree to this compromise.
I would like to make use of this debate to reiterate that we, not least in the course of negotiations on the next Financial Perspective and the instruments associated with it, will do everything possible to introduce greater flexibility and more room for manoeuvre. Let me repeat what the plenary said in the relevant report, namely that Parliament will regard that aspect of its position which refers to the creation of reserves for emergency situations as non-negotiable. You will be familiar with the figures that we quoted on that occasion. We sometimes get the impression that the Commission, and particularly the Council, would rather not negotiate about figures at all. At the end of the day, though, we will have to come to an agreement on them and find a way in future to deliver responses of this kind faster, more promptly, and with greater credibility than we have done in these proceedings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples