Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-474"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.36.2-474"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to pick up on what Mr Surján said. We are dealing with a new procedure in which the two parts of the budgetary legislator, the Council and Parliament, are operating on the same level. I would like to address all those fellow Members from the Committee on Budgets who have complained that this debate has become politicised. I would like to say to you that the logic of this new procedure dictates that we go beyond technical budgetary matters and discuss real budgetary policy. With this budgetary policy, it has become clear that, in the other authorities and in the European Council, there is an intention to use budgetary policy to obtain a different European Union. I will therefore start with the Presidency of the Council – with you, Mr Wathelet.
In my view, this Parliament is indebted to the Belgian Presidency, because I believe that it has helped to achieve something that I did not believe possible three weeks ago. In the Council, the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the Netherlands – we must also mention them by name here – were not prepared to agree on a compromise in respect of the involvement of Parliament in the Financial Perspective. The compromises that we wanted with the Council were rejected. Right up to the last minute, they tried to reach a compromise, but these two governments said ‘no’. A very intelligent solution – a Belgian solution perhaps – was found, namely to get the governments that will hold the Presidency in the next two years – Hungary, Poland, Denmark and Cyprus – to issue a statement to the effect that they will involve Parliament in the development of objectives. I assume this will be as before, in other words, on the basis of the current interinstitutional agreement. Thus, four governments in the European Council have declared that they are of a different opinion to the government of the Netherlands and the government of the United Kingdom. That is a major success, because it has made it clear that the Council is not a homogeneous whole that can dictate a uniform objective, but that there are most definitely different opinions in the Council, for example, in the case of states like Hungary or Poland, who fear that, with the financing of the External Action Service, ITER and Galileo using the same budgetary resources that we have today, but with agricultural spending frozen until 2013, cuts will have to be made somewhere at some point. Moreover, the cuts would then be made in connection with cohesion policy. Thus, we have allies in the Council, namely, those states that do not want these cuts, and these include, in particular, the next two states to hold the Presidency, Poland and Hungary. In this respect, Parliament has achieved a major success.
I do not share the opinion of Mrs Trüpel that we have given way – quite the opposite! With regard to the second core political demand that we made, flexibility, no agreement was reached. The matter has been deferred. Mr Wathelet, you say that there is now unanimity and that you could have had the qualified majority. I will turn this on its head and say that those who want to have ITER must then also ensure that there is unanimity in the Council for cooperation with regard to flexibility, otherwise they will not get ITER.
We have negotiated hard and in a highly controversial manner. At the end of the day, it was never about figures, but about political will.
Finally, my third point is that, in a fierce debate, the Commission has positioned itself between the Council and Parliament. In the Council, there is not a single government that is prepared to discuss our own resources. We want to discuss our own resources. The Commission has taken its position. On this issue, it has sided with Parliament. Thus, the Community institutions are in agreement. In the spring, I expect the President of the Commission and you, Mr Lewandowski, to put forward a corresponding proposal on the arrangements for own resources in the EU. The Member States – the 27 governments – will then have to take a position on this.
I am a little surprised that I am the only group chair to speak here today. I would also like to address my fellow Members in that regard. There was, to some extent, a heated debate between us and the budget experts. I believe that, in the end, this went in a positive direction. I would like to thank the budget rapporteurs, Mrs Jędrzejewska and Mrs Trüpel. Through my increased involvement with the budget at a political level, I have learnt how difficult this business is. I would like to compliment you greatly on your work. Finally, I would like to apologise to all those members of the Committee on Budgets who have, at times, felt that I have provoked them. I have to say to you, however, that I considered this provocation necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples