Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-012-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.4.2-012-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, if I may, I wish to make a minor correction to what you said, Mr President: Ms Jensen from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is also a member of the negotiating team.
When we say that based on our analysis and the new challenges created by the Treaty of Lisbon, we are in favour, in principle, of contributions being set at a higher level than envisaged in the Commission’s proposals, this also has a firm basis in our analysis. That is something which the Council must understand. However, if no agreement is reached, we will not fade out of sight. What we will be left with, in that case, are the ceilings for 2013 – the ceilings, not the budget – which will remain in place until a solution is found.
However, our offer, which maintains an appropriate balance between figures – and the more difficult the figures, the more comprehensive flexibility is required – means that we must send out the same clear message that Jean-Luc Dehaene and Anne Jensen have incorporated into our report. We need own resources that are worthy of the name. During the final phase, the Commission made an interesting proposal which also involves the use of the Financial Transaction Tax and, accordingly, a reduction in the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax. In this context, it is important, in any discussion of a euro capacity or euro facility, to understand that the euro is the rule, not the exception. We cannot outsource the rule. We have to focus on the unity of the European budget so that we have a strong European Union in future too.
If we take the view that the Financial Transaction Tax is an interesting option for the euro facility, for example, but we would prefer not to introduce it in the context of the European budget, I fail to understand the logic. We are maintaining these core elements of our offer and are in a position to negotiate swiftly and achieve a result as soon as possible – but not at any price!
There we have it, Mr President: that is what budget experts are like, they look at every tiny detail. May I say that I greatly welcome the intensive work that you have done, in your capacity as President of this House, to increase democratic accountability in European budgetary policy, notwithstanding possible differences of opinion about the interview you gave on Saturday evening. That is for another time and place, however.
Mr Kalfin and I are today presenting an interim report which is ultimately intended to speed up and facilitate the multiannual financial framework approval procedure. We do so on the basis of the work done in the past by the Special Committee on policy challenges – the SURE Committee – chaired by Ms Jutta Haug, with Mr Salvador Garriga as rapporteur.
At this point, I would like to express my particular thanks to the present and previous Presidencies, for what we have here is a pilot project: before and after the meetings of the General Affairs Council (GAC), a briefing and debriefing are held on the negotiating boxes discussed there, and the European Parliament’s negotiating team was also invited to attend the informal GAC meetings. Hopefully, this will result in greater mutual understanding and a way forward which is based on actual content, not prejudgements. It goes without saying, however, that this pilot project – this working method – does not, in itself, guarantee any outcomes.
Our analysis is not just about a magic number, incidentally. We worked very hard on content and on the challenges facing the European Union in the globalisation process. We looked at the existing multiannual programme and compared the Commission’s proposals to it, and considered how we should proceed. For us, of course, it is about numbers, and about the right numbers. It is about content, and it is about comprehensive flexibility for the annual budget procedures. It is about safeguarding own resources which are worthy of the name. At this particular time, it is also about the unity of the European budget: the Treaty is quite clear on that point.
Let us face facts: some Member States have been talking about a magic number and yet they want to see the cohesion and agricultural policies remaining as they are; they are not interested in anything else. That does not contribute to growth and employment at a difficult time of budget consolidation. If Member States are not willing to provide enough money for the European budget, then they really need to tell us which of the political priorities that they themselves have set will be off the table in future.
We cannot have successes like Erasmus, which benefits 2.5 million students, and then possibly make cuts there because we want to keep other things in cohesion or agricultural policy! We cannot say that 3 % is reserved for research and development and then cut the Commission’s proposals for Horizon 2020! We cannot claim that Europe must prepare for a new role in foreign and development policy and at the same time fail to achieve our own 0.7 % GNI spending target for official development aid. That is not how it works. This cannot enhance our credibility.
We need to focus on better spending, of course taking due account of the budget consolidation processes under way in the Member States. To that end, we have made many detailed proposals on how we can work together, on the basis of comprehensive analyses of administrative aspects and the management of the programmes, and how we can achieve better implementation. At the same time, however, we point out that programmes such as
and lifelong learning should not become casualties as we move forward.
There are other issues which must also be addressed as part of this process: the debate about synergies between national and European administrations, the question of what should be regulated on the basis of subsidiarity, and where there is excessive bureaucracy which we must dismantle. For example, the Member States have 3 164 embassies and consulates around the world, with an annual budget of EUR 7.5 billion and around 95 000 employees. That is 15 times greater than the 2012 budget of the European External Action Service. So again, let us face facts: these figures should also be mentioned in the interests of truth and honesty, ladies and gentlemen."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Connecting Europe"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples