Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-194"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Broad political framework for the next financial perspective: Making Europe prosper – policy agenda and budgetary means for an enlarged Union 2007-20132
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040210.9.2-194"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-10-Speech-2-1952
lpv:speaker	lp:Reimer Böge2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; BUDG (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, neither the restriction to 1% nor the Commission’s proposal for an expansion to 1.24%, which amounts to 1.15% in reality, can be the signal we send to Europe’s citizens and taxpayers today. Naturally, the letter from the six governments so soon after the collapse of the Summit was a mistake in terms of its timing, tone and content and was therefore quite unacceptable. Equally, however, in response to the Commission’s ideas – and you, President Prodi, have presented some interesting keywords, although we will have to discuss them in far more detail – I must say that what is urgently required in the coming months is a critical review of the European Union’s agenda, with a focus on both positive and negative aspects across the board in all policy fields, if we want to identify honest and practical responses for Europe’s citizens. Naturally, the outcome of our discussions today cannot be binding on the new Commission, which will still have to be approved by the new Parliament; nor can it be binding in any way on the new Parliament in its capacity as part of the budgetary authority. As part of this more critical approach, however, it is essential, first and foremost, to complete the constitutional treaty and define the system of powers, also in line with the subsidiarity principle. This also means that if powers are transferred back to the Member States in an enlarged EU, we will need fewer resources for these areas at European level. However, it also means that if tasks are transferred to the European level – such as foreign, security and development policy – the Member States will have to look again at the possibility of not only increasing the EU budget but also reducing spending at national level. I would like to conclude by raising two points. After all, it is not just a matter of freeing up budget funds in order to deal with new objectives, improving competitiveness and growth potential. What I think is missing, especially in the light of the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy to be discussed next month, is that here, the Commission itself has not established the coherence on many legislative proposals, which is necessary to achieve the binding consolidation that will generate growth potential and entrepreneurial freedoms throughout the European Union. If what you are proposing in the budget is flanked by such initiatives, our credibility will be much improved. In addition, we see the option of reverting to Article 272 of the Treaty without binding new Parliaments and new institutions as a very exciting one."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph