Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-396"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.31.2-396"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament with regard to this matter, I would like to express my thanks to Mr Böge for his positive spirit of cooperation. A long-term framework is important, but a seven-year freeze with rigid budget ceilings both overall and by sector is an unreasonable model in today’s rapidly changing world.
The current long-term budget, which is valid until 2014, was, in fact, determined in 2005. What could we have known then of the current economic crisis, of the situation in Kosovo or Gaza, of the extent of the climate crisis or the extreme oscillations in food prices? No, we cannot carry on doing things this way.
My conclusion is that we must have a detailed overview of the current long-term budget: the multiannual financial framework. This will apply to a particularly large extent, of course, if the proposal of the Committee on Budgets is implemented, in other words, the extension of the current financial framework by the suggested two years in order to synchronise it better with the Commission’s and Parliament’s terms of office.
So what do we want? Several things, in fact.
Firstly, our aspirations for the budget review itself. In our view, it is unacceptable to focus only on the forthcoming financial framework. The Committee on Budgets has adopted a number of amendments which mean that we will require the Commission to submit a proposal for a sound review of the content of the current long-term budget as early as possible. This is particularly relevant, of course, if our demand for an extension should be implemented.
We also demand that the Swedish Presidency this autumn processes this proposal from the Commission actively and promptly. We must get to grips with this.
Secondly, as regards the political approach, we have received clear signals from the broad open consultation that the Commission has carried out. There are a few areas in particular where the EU must be more forceful. These include climate policy; jobs and growth; and foreign and development policy. If the EU is to be capable of playing a global leading role in these areas, it needs resources. This is absolutely clear. Currently, all of these areas are significantly under-funded.
Thirdly, we need to make a number of necessary technical changes. I do not need to elaborate on this, as Mr Böge has already talked about it. We want to have five years instead of seven and an adjustment to the period so that the new Parliament and a new Commission can have real influence over the framework that is to apply during their term of office.
Fourthly, we want a revised and fairer system for the EU’s own resources. What we need now are rapid proposals and a sound mid-term review of the current long-term budget to bring rhetoric and resources closer to one another and to begin the process towards a more long-term sustainable approach to the EU budget prior to the next long-term budget period."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples