Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.2.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, listening to the spokesperson of the Group of the European People’s Party, I sincerely wonder why we exercise the right of consultation in this matter. Berlin was a step backwards in the field of own resources and, in general, in the field of European solidarity and construction of the political union. Both elements are probably linked, but I would not dare now to state which is the correct order of cause and effect. In any event, Parliament criticised it severely in the Spring.
The decision on own resources which we are discussing today, which is merely a translation on the part of the Commission of the European Council’s political decision, is the best evidence of this retrograde step. All the features of the system which may lead to confusion between own resources and national contributions are highlighted. I wonder, by the way, why these national contributions were abrogated in Maastricht.
Parliament’s position is to condemn and rule out the application of the so-called principle of fair return to the European budget. Well, Berlin has confirmed that principle, and without daring to admit it, naturally, they have sided with Mrs Thatcher.
There was a disputed British rebate, for historic reasons which are becoming less apparent but which are understandable. Berlin maintains it but also offers four small rebates to Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands, which are not exactly the poorest countries in Europe.
It increases the already scandalous 10% prima de collection premium to an unspeakable 25%. The only real justification for such an aberration is to lower the Dutch bill, despite the fact that the payment – to use the Council’s terminology – is inflated to the benefit of the Dutch coffers as a result of the Rotterdam effect. And that is what they want to hide.
The Commission’s proposal is completely unsatisfactory, as was the Council’s decision. We will only resolve the problems of own resources when we accept that the contributors are not the Member States but the citizens. What is unjust is the fact that two European citizens with an identical income make different contributions because of the mere fact that one lives in Frankfurt and the other in Seville. That is where the injustice lies. Therefore, it should be made clear that the objective must be that the citizens directly shoulder the burden of the Community budget without an opaque system of resources which will mask the process and prevent democratic accountability. Meanwhile, temporary solutions should be aimed at ensuring a certain degree of justice and transparency and not the reverse."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples