Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.7.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to say a big thank you to everyone involved. These negotiations have produced results. There are few problems remaining to be solved ahead of the second reading and all of the parties concerned have helped in a constructive way to achieve this.
Even though it took a long time, it was definitely important for us to manage to finance the economic recovery plan without postponing the solutions to a later date. We were pleased that the Council finally accepted our view that the solution required new money and the use of the ‘flexibility instrument’, just as in the case of Kozloduy.
However, I am still surprised at the Council’s and the Swedish Presidency’s position on a few points. For example, I did not think that Parliament’s proposal to allow the new Baltic Sea Strategy to receive new money of its own would be opposed. I am, however, pleased that this point, too, was conceded. The second thing that surprises me – and that is still not fully resolved – is the Progress programme and the new instrument for micro-credits. From Parliament’s point of view, the idea is that the EU should increase investment in innovation in order to tackle social exclusion and unemployment. This would seem to be particularly important given that 2010 is the European year of social integration. It is difficult, then, to understand why the Council and the Swedish Presidency seem to be fighting so hard, to the bitter end, for the financing of the new instrument for micro-credits to be found from cuts in the Progress programme.
In this regard, I have a direct question for the Swedish Presidency.
In view of the high rate of unemployment, an ever increasing degree of social exclusion, huge integration problems and a Progress programme that is functioning exceptionally well, why is the Council persisting in demanding cuts in the Progress programme?
This year’s budget negotiations have resulted in nearly all new priorities having to be financed by changes in the ceilings of the long-term framework and by utilising the flexibility instrument. There are barely any margins left. This framework will apply for another three years yet, but living with these conditions for such a long time will be totally unacceptable. I therefore have another question to put to both the Commission and the Council.
What is your position with regard to Parliament’s demand for a swift and forceful revision of the financial framework for the period 2011-2013?
We believe that the budget negotiations for the three remaining years will be problematic if there is no change, particularly if we consider the fact that we are about to undergo a new round of enlargement and we are facing major new commitments in the area of the climate. In my opinion, the principle should be that new funds should be appropriated for new tasks. This principle usually applies at national level and should also apply to the EU. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples