Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-071-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.4.2-071-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, colleagues, thank you for your comments. There is no multiannual financial perspective without the consent of European Parliament – that is clear. Therefore your voice and your vote are important and should be helpful in the very exceptional circumstances in which Europe finds itself today. It is also a sign of good institutional cooperation, with each institution having an important role to play – including the national parliaments – with regard to the issue of own resources and taxation: no taxation without representation. That is my answer to Mr Hartong, who usually makes critical comments and leaves the room instead of listening to the answer.
This is a part of this rational construction I admired for so many years from behind the Iron Curtain. It is absolutely right to place the multiannual framework in the context of the realistic growth, jobs and competitiveness agenda for Europe. It makes a difference whether this is just a political announcement or an agenda equipped with money. The European budget is about the multiannual predictability of investment in Europe with a shortage of investment money in the national budgets. The European Parliament has a clear role to play when it comes to the proper level of budgets.
Our technical update for cohesion was not very fortunate, given the recent figures, but we cannot make the other basis for the ‘Berlin methodology’ in relation to cohesion. The recent figures, as updated, which are not fortunate for cohesion, are the only ones on which we can base our calculations with safeguards for countries like Hungary, which have experienced some problems in recent years.
Regarding own resources, your important message is on the unity of the budget. We can understand unity as also not being a fan of the second budget for the European Union, but this is a unity of a complementary nature of revenues and expenditure. The proposal on the table, supported by the European Parliament, is really a fair, transparent and simple response to everybody who wants a simple, transparent and a fair system of own resources. If we manage to achieve real reform where revenue is concerned, we deserve another Nobel Prize. The same goes for simplification, which has been requested in the soon-to-be 28 Member States.
Finally, the European Parliament has an important role to play at the level of expenditure. This is a modest proposal: comparisons with national budgets are not fair. No single Member State has in the past had to accommodate such a major enlargement in terms of geography. We are to be 28, not 27, in the next financial perspective, and we are to have many more powers and areas of responsibility at European level. Therefore I cannot resist several comparisons. Yes, our annual budgets are less than the annual budgetary deficits of some Member States. I cannot resist pointing out that the UK’s contribution to the European budget is on a par with that country’s contribution to its fire service, and less than it contributes to its prison service. It is 14 times less than the servicing of the UK debt. That is not the problem of the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples