Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.7.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Surján for the positive outcome of the negotiations. As others have done, I would like to express my satisfaction at the fact that we, in Parliament, have been able to retain our important priorities in the second reading, too, even if we have had to make some cuts in connection with the agreement that we had with the Council. In addition to the energy investments in the recovery plan, we have also succeeded in allocating extra money to budget headings that are aimed at research and innovation in the field of energy. We have succeeded in safeguarding our pilot projects and preparatory actions, which are new initiatives that are being instigated by Parliament and, on a personal note, I would like to say that we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are pleased that we have succeeded in securing funds for the Baltic Sea Strategy.
As others have done, I would like to highlight two things. Firstly, the lack of flexibility, with regard to which I would like Mr Šemeta, who is, of course, continuing in another post within the Commission, to take note of the fact that we do indeed need this mid-term review of the budget and I would like the Commission – the new Commission – to take this seriously. Secondly, we need to look at things closely and ask ourselves whether there are any new priorities that we need to set within this framework. Are there any programmes that are not working very well? Can the priorities be changed within the existing framework, or do we need to revise the framework itself? We are, of course, in the position of having had resources as a result of the fact that plenty of money was allocated to agriculture to start with within the multiannual financial framework. However, this is no longer available, so now things will get difficult, as Mr Böge pointed out. Now comes the moment of truth. The next few years, when we will need to be flexible, will be very, very difficult if we cannot get the finance ministers to provide more money, and I think this will be more difficult than usual in the current economic climate.
There is another issue that I would also like to raise, and that I would also like you to take into account in your future work, Mr Šemeta. Mr Maňka has done some very fine work with regard to administrative expenditure and we are now seeing very populist politicians saying that we must not give the EU’s staff the pay rises that they are actually entitled to. In my group, we do not advocate the contravention of existing agreements. If people are dissatisfied with the system, they must change the system. It is no good simply to be dissatisfied with the result of the established system. I think there are good grounds for examining the conditions of EU employees and, first and foremost, examining whether the rules that we have in place for staff in the EU system also provide the leadership opportunities we need in order to attain the effective implementation of the EU’s policies. It is several years now since the Kinnock reform. It is five years since enlargement. It is now time to review things once again. This is just something for you to think about, Mr Šemeta."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples