Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-01-Speech-4-081-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111201.4.4-081-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Dominik, Mr Lewandowski, Mr Lamassoure, ladies and gentlemen, the budget for 2012 is an austerity budget with increases below the rate of inflation. The political question that we need to ask ourselves and to find an answer to is whether this represents a correct, forward-looking, pro-European decision.
From a green perspective, the EU budget and the national budgets should be setting new priorities. We must remove the non-sustainable policies, in particular, at a European level in the areas of agricultural and Structural Funds. We need to put in their place sustainable policies that will promote competition.
A dramatic figure has been quoted for 2010 which is that global CO
emissions have increased by 6%. That is not a policy which we can continue if we want to save our planet. From our perspective, the European budget is not doing enough in this respect.
We are living in times of austerity and I would like to emphasise that I know what I am talking about, because I come from Bremen, the smallest German state, and we have been forced to make savings for years. I do not live on the moon and I am not an alien who has landed in Brussels. I understand the suffering in the Member States, but their budgets have all risen in recent years, while the European budget has seen much smaller increases. However, we have to put this in proportion. Therefore, I believe that there is justification for saying that it is right that the small European budget, which amounts to only 1% of the GDP of the Member States, must be increased in specific policy areas, because this is all about spending for the future and about new competitiveness which is so badly needed in many European Member States. The European budget must implement a clear policy in this respect.
What are the positive aspects of this budget from a green perspective? There is funding of EUR 25 million for the new financial supervisory bodies which are urgently needed to enable us to regulate the financial markets more effectively. There are important pilot projects for innovation and also for the sustainable financing of online cultural markets. In our own administrative budget for Parliament, there is also the intention to make structural savings, including a reduction of EUR 20 million in spending on translation and interpreting and cuts in travelling costs. These are clear signs that the Members of this House are prepared to impose their own restrictions on the budget. I believe that this also sends an important signal to the public, to the citizens of Europe.
However, I would like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen and, in particular, the representative of the Council, whether this is a budget that really takes European added value and our common European interests seriously. I cannot see that this is the case. In the light of our major challenge – the conference in Durban is taking place at the moment – as Mr Lewandowski has once again said, the European budget should look quite different. It is, above all, an investment budget. Despite the need for austerity, we must use this budget to create new targeted incentives for new sustainable products, technologies and jobs to enable us to be more successful in the internal market and also on the global market. Only when Europe takes the lead with products of this kind will we have a chance of being competitive with emerging economies such as China and India. We need to do more. I think that a sense of common European determination is lacking in this budget.
Where do I believe that the European Council is being inconsistent? It has constantly called for savings to be made. However, when it comes to the nuclear fusion reactor for which fission products such as tritium are needed, if indeed it ever functions properly, we will be spending EUR 1.3 billion more over the next two years. I would like to ask you whether you think this is consistent. If we really want to make savings, we should focus on future expenditure, in particular, in the area of research policy, where we know that we will be successful over the next few years. In the case of the ITER nuclear fusion reactor, this is completely uncertain. Therefore, it is wrong to take funding from the research framework programme.
In addition, I believe that there is a problem with regard to interinstitutional trust. The Council made the statement that the commitment appropriations that we enter into should really be paid. Now this is no longer quite so clear. Therefore, my group is unable to vote in favour of this budget."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples