Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.3.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your comment, Mr Schmid, you saved me from having to say the same thing. Of course, it is tempting, when Markus Ferber makes such an offer, to take him up on it. Although seeing him with his trousers down is not a particularly appealing prospect, the idea of debating the issue he has raised here is not at all bad. Because a proposal such as the one he has just made, that is to give the financial perspective a thorough overhaul, is certainly something that needs to be taken very seriously and is a very good starting point.
However, we have to recognise that we are, of course, dealing with taxpayers' money. We are dealing with tax revenue. It is all very easy to stand there and say: "The framework you have established is pure nonsense, we can just sweep it aside, because we need more." It is all very easy to say that with hindsight. Of course, the world has changed over the last few weeks and months, and I will make no secret of the fact that over the last few years I have repeatedly asked whether the financial resources for one thing or another really are adequate in view of the acute problems we are faced with.
These acute problems are some of the issues the Group of the Party of European Socialists wishes to address during the budget debates. Consumer confidence and food quality are, of course, also acute problems. These are two of the really major priorities that in recent weeks and months have really run into difficulties because of unforeseeable events in the fields of agricultural policy and public food supply. But we cannot just stand there now and act as if nothing had happened, we cannot just bury our heads in the sand and say that everything must carry on as before and that what was agreed in the past will remain correct for ever. At this point we really must make the question of consumer protection and food quality, in the context of a reform of agricultural policy, one of our top priorities.
Now let me mention another top priority and urgent issue. In this case I must insist that we cannot simply forget and sweep aside something that we have fought hard for for two years, by which I mean the issue of peace in Europe and, in particular, peace in the Balkans. This is not a subject that can just be brushed aside because a new and more serious problem has arisen, and perhaps one that affects us more directly. Rebuilding the Balkans and providing peacekeeping forces, providing support for the people there, are also issues that impact on the future viability of Europe as a whole. Everything that we fail to do now to create peaceful structures there may rebound on us at some time in the future. Which of you would like to guarantee that we will not be drawn into military conflicts again in the future if we give people the impression that we are more likely to support them when they are fighting each other? It must be obvious at the moment that the best thing is for them to work together with us to maintain peace in Europe.
Another acute need that is also the result of events in recent years, but is at the same time also a pointer for the future, is the fight against unemployment. This is an area in which we have, in the past, been successful in Europe, in the European Union. Last year, the unemployment rate fell from 8.7% to 8%. The European Union itself has, of course, not borne the greatest part of this burden, but we can certainly claim to have played an integral part in making progress by virtue of our proposals and initiatives. If social inclusion is taken seriously and we refuse to accept that sections of the population are excluded from participating in the labour market, for example, then we have to take appropriate countermeasures here. People have a right to expect us to fight hard against unemployment. But social inclusion – as Neena Gill has already said – also means that with the advent of new technology everyone must have an opportunity to participate in this society. Such participation cannot depend on whether people have enough money to buy a top-of-the-range computer and use it for their children's education. We must make absolutely sure to involve everyone.
One point that is certainly much more important in political terms than in budgetary terms is, as Markus Ferber has quite rightly said, the issue of immigration flows. I am pleased that we in the Committee on Budgets agreed that we would deal with this subject under the headings of "migration" and "provision of aid". How can we deal with immigration that is either unwanted or which we may find desirable at some point in the future? I am not talking about criminalising it or reacting to it emotionally, but we must tackle this subject. I regard it as being very positive that we can reconcile this with the wording of the corresponding part of Mr Costa Neves' draft report.
My next point is the common foreign and security policy. This is another point that may not have a particular impact in budgetary terms at the moment, but which is certainly important politically speaking. We should no longer be worrying about how we in Europe can enhance the networking of military structures or how we can get more military units on the ground – European security policy should also be about disarmament, that is to say about dismantling the weapons of mass destruction that threaten us. This should not just be a one-sided matter; it must also be in our interest to contribute to a global process of dismantling weapons of mass destruction. That should be an important priority for us.
In conclusion I would like to say that we intend to accept the draft report prepared by Mr Costa Neves, which we consider to be very good. There is room for improvement in some places, and we have tabled appropriate amendments, and I know that there is a lot of support for these, for which I am deeply grateful. We will always consider the budget – not only this year, but every year – from this point of view: do we as a Parliament actually have a voice in the budget as a whole or do we only have a right of say on one part of it? As we see it, there can only be one overall budget, without distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, and it needs to cover revenue and expenditure alike. Only then will the budget procedure be complete, and that is our long-term goal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples