Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.6.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too regret the fact that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council has come here to say nothing, but I would like to make the following comments and ask the following questions, to see if the Council can clarify things.
Firstly, the preamble to the Council’s proposal of 5 December states that the financial perspective must provide for the financial resources necessary to confront the European Union’s internal and external challenges. Do you really believe that the Union’s challenges can be tackled with fewer and fewer resources?
Secondly, you ― though you are not the only ones ― have ranted and raved, sometimes for good reasons, but also for reasons of demagoguery, against the CAP, but at the end of the day, you will carry on cutting the most sensitive part of the CAP dedicated to rural development: the most modern, the most rational and the most justifiable part of agricultural spending.
Thirdly, we all applauded the British Prime Minister when he said in this Parliament that he wanted a modern budget for Europe, and we hoped that that would include an increase in the appropriations intended for creating this Europe of excellence. Will that be a vain hope? Will you change your initial proposal, which meant a 40% cut with regard to the Commission?
Fourthly, the ‘ugly duckling’ of the Community budget: external actions. All of the Foreign Affairs Ministers are constantly delivering promises relating to the needs of developing third countries, or to provide relief following natural disasters, or not so natural disasters, such as famine. But then the cuts will come, as always. This means that we will be giving to some people what we take from others.
Fifthly, you have accepted that an agreement was not reached last June, because the financial perspective was too generous. Are you going to carry on listening to those colleagues of yours who believe that when it comes to the European budget, the smaller it is the better? Unfortunately, many countries are happy that the European budget gets smaller every year; for some, in fact, it was the only positive thing about your first proposal. Is the idea of trying to slow down European integration with the philosophy ‘with less budget, less Europe’ going to win out in the Council? In Parliament, however, I would like to make it very clear that we want to move forward with European integration. We do not believe that we have gone too far and that from now on it is better for each country to sort things out for itself. This is the great gulf between the Council and Parliament. It is not going to be a question of a few million euros more or a few million euros less. We shall judge where the financial perspective that the European Council can propose to us is going to take us.
Sixthly, we saw that all you were prepared to propose on the controversial issue of the Union’s income, or own resources, were a series of botched jobs to keep your associates who want to pull the Community budget apart happy. Do you want us to return to national contributions?
Finally, in the face of an attack on the Union’s system of own resources, Parliament only has the right to protest, according to the Treaties; nevertheless, please be in no doubt that the existence of the financial perspective does depend on Parliament. Do not forget that, and do not be so sure that we are going to do whatever the Council asks of us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples