Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-477"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.31.2-477"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, the 2011 budget is not only the first budget which will be put into effect under the Treaty of Lisbon, as the previous speakers have rightly noted, but it is also the first budget which will be used as the basis for acting upon the new political ideas brought in by Lisbon. It is also the fifth budget to be prepared based on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013, and because it is the fifth budget, we should already know a good deal about its strengths and weaknesses.
I appreciate the efforts made by the Belgian Presidency to prepare it for reading in the Council, but I am very worried by the fact that as many as seven Member States voted against the Council’s reading. Sometimes, I have the irresistible and unpleasant feeling that when the Finance Ministers of particular Member States look at their national budgets and see the entry ‘contribution to the European Union budget’, they start to think about how they can reduce this or even get rid of it, and that they do not think about what in fact happens to that contribution or what it is used for, nor do they think about or want to discuss the consequences of such a reduction. I deplore the fact that this debate does not take place, and it was lacking, in my opinion, when the Council met to vote on the proposal. I also feel that the explanatory remarks in the Council’s proposal do not contain enough detail. Why, exactly, were some budget lines reduced and not others? Why were they reduced by the amount decided, and not by more or less? I hope that at the next stage of our work, we will be able to be more precise and clear up the lack of detail. All the greater is our obligation to ensure that the subsequent process of establishing the 2011 budget is detailed and precise and that we give careful consideration to every budget line in a responsible manner, which means not only thinking about percentages, but also about what is important, what we want to spend more on and what we want to sacrifice as part of savings.
I would like to underscore the European Parliament’s priority, which is no longer a surprise to anyone, and is not the only priority. It is a priority related to young people, mobility and education. If the Council proposes cuts of EUR 25 million in the main budget line for this priority, namely the line related to lifelong learning, it is difficult to speak of dialogue here. I hope, however, that we will return to serious dialogue in the conciliation procedure, because we express our priorities so clearly that more use could have been made of them than proposing such cuts. In the European Parliament, we are currently at the phase of preparation for the reading. We are already at a very advanced stage, and I hope that our reading will be accepted by the Committee on Budgets by the end of the month and that at the plenary sitting at the beginning of October, we will show we can adopt a good and constructive budget under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. I am counting on good cooperation, both with the Belgian Presidency and with the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples