Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-01-Speech-3-121"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:National management declarations – Responsibilities of the Member States of in executing the EU budget2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060201.14.3-121"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-01-Speech-3-1222
lpv:speaker	lp:José Javier Pomés Ruiz2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-28--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Unión del Pueblo Navarro (2004-09-16--2009-01-20)3 member; DEVE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2007-02-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we expected more from you in fact, Mr Winkler. We expected more from the Austrian Presidency in this regard. This is not the first time that this Parliament has seen the Council fall short with regard to what we ask. Now we Europeans have a serious problem: in the financial perspective, this Parliament wanted us to spend 1.14%, but the President-in-Office, Mr Blair, lowered this to 1.04%. From this it would appear that Community policies, which are so effective and which have done so much to move Europe forward, are being badly managed by the European Union and that, therefore, the best thing we can do is reduce the budget, because things are not being handled properly. In that case, what we should do is see to it that there are no European policies, but national policies: let us renationalise the common agricultural policy, let us spend in the Member States. Behind this lies the fact that for 10 years the Court of Auditors has said that it cannot approve the European accounts. But what European accounts, if 80% of the Community budget is managed and spent in the Member States; if just a fifth is managed in Brussels. What is happening? Some national authorities, which want to pay less and want Community policies to have less fuel, now that we are in a Europe of 25 and are about to be a Europe of 27, are telling us, ‘you are spending badly’. What is the Committee on Budgetary Control asking for? We are asking to be told where money is spent badly; if a Member State is spending badly, we want it to be said that that State is spending badly, that it is not Brussels. We want to be told whether the problems have arisen here in Brussels or there in the Member State. And to this end, it would be helpful for us if the Member States confirmed the way in which Community money is spent. I believe that Community money is spent better and more effectively in Brussels than in the average Member State. Nevertheless, as a result of the system we have, Brussels is blamed for bad management, rather than the Member States. I know that the Council has to defend the good name of the Member States. We would ask for co-responsibility, an approval, by whichever authority, whether it be the Finance Minister or the appropriate Court, which confirms that the accounts are managed in each Member State in the way that the European citizens want, so that Vice-President Kallas or Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control are not always to blame; that the blame be shared out and the parties responsible exposed. I would therefore ask you to confirm how each Member State spends the European citizens’ money."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph