Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-399"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.21.2-399"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I acknowledge, on the one hand, the efforts of the Commission to enhance this review debate through this communication and, on the other, I will openly admit that, at the time and also today, we had a different idea about the review proposals based on the joint declaration of 2006. If we follow the content of this communication, it will mean that there will be no review until 2014. However, that means – as I also said previously – that essential elements of the Lisbon policy based on the new treaty, at least parts relating to the budget, will be postponed until after 2014. The question then arises as to whether we can afford to do this, particularly in the context of globalisation, where the ability of the European Union to act on a political level as well as an economic one is under discussion, and whether we can accept responsibility for this. I have the impression that the Commission in office at that time, and Mr Prodi, were too ambitious in their proposals and the current Commission is too cautious.
Of course, when we come to take the next step, it is important first to focus on better legislation in order to promote growth and employment, simplification, efficiency and a reduction of the costs involved in implementing programmes before we ask for more money. This, incidentally, also applies to research, where we have deficits and where there are still yellow/red cards from the Court of Auditors. New financial instruments are also needed, as well as a discussion about what we will do, for example, with large-scale innovation, industrial and research projects such as ITER or Galileo or with energy projects. Will we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to these? If we say ‘yes’ to them, should they then also be appropriately – and in a different way to previously – financed to completion through the European budget via the overall multiannual financial programme?
In view of a sometimes misleading discussion at the level of the Member States, allow me also to say something about our own resources. It is entirely legitimate and in accordance with the treaty – yes, the treaty requires it in fact – for us to concern ourselves with our own resources, because the treaty states that, without prejudice to other revenue, we shall finance ourselves first of all from our own resources. We should all take part in this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples