Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.2.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are getting down to serious business now, for this is about our money, or the European Union’s revenue to be precise. The discussions we are having today on reforming the system of own resources are directly related to the discussions we had and the decisions we reached in the spring of this year. I would like to draw your attention to the Commission’s comprehensive report, which presents a thorough analysis of own resources and has presented many of the options for reform which come up in discussion.
Thirdly, if there is to be transparency, balance and manageability then the basis for financing must be unambiguous. The essential pillar as far as the current financing framework is concerned, is the gross domestic product of the Member States. This must continue to be the case for as long as the EU is financed by the Member States, for any other method would distort the system and render it illogical. The own resources ceiling of 1.27% expresses what proportion of gross domestic product has to be devoted to the European budget. This figure has become a politically reliable basis for cooperation based on partnership between Parliament and the Council. That is why it must be maintained and must not be changed arbitrarily. These are a few aspects of the proposal I am putting to you concerning changes to the own resources system.
Unfortunately, there is no possibility of doing more at the present time since we have only limited room for manoeuvre in our actions. The consultation procedure in force here and, above all, the restrictive framework created by the Berlin Council’s agreements mean that we can only be moderate in our dealings. I would ask you all though, to at least give me your support as far as these draft amendments are concerned.
We established our position on the own resource system, as a Parliament in March, with full knowledge of this report and following very full discussions. Unfortunately, the Berlin Council was unable to reach agreement on an actual reform step but contented itself with the kind of haggling for which it has long been famed. The outcome of the Berlin conclusions has been further complication of the own resources system and restriction of the European Union’s financial room for manoeuvre.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. We must put an end to the situation in which each Head of Government and Finance Minister in the Council only has the short-term interests of their own country at heart when it comes to planning our revenue, regardless of the consequences. This Community can only be sustained and developed if our common interests as a whole and our longer-term aspirations are taken account of, and if we are prepared to invest in this. In this connection, it is the Council’s policy in particular that merits condemnation, for it persists in committing expenditure at international donor conferences, the burden of which falls to the European budget, without ensuring that the corresponding revenue is in place. That being the case, the Council is not taking its dealings with the European Union’s revenue very seriously – and that is putting it mildly – and it may, in the forthcoming enlargement process, become a real handicap capable of obstructing our opportunities for development.
However, I am also disappointed with the proposal put forward by the Commission on changing the own resource system. Of course, we are not under any illusions; we too are aware that the Council was not about to perform a dramatic about-turn at some point from the spring onwards, and initiate far-reaching reform. Obviously, I recognise that where our proposals are concerned, the Commission, as must we as a Parliament, has to take into account the mood in the Council and the positions adopted there if we want to achieve a workable outcome.
Nevertheless, the Commission could have done more, in fact I would go so far as to say that it should have done more. It has trailed snail-like behind the Council, only to now place before us as a proposal something that follows the Council’s agreement to the letter. But it is also the role of the Commission to be the driving force of integration; at the very least, it must fulfil its role as guardian of the Treaties, warding off any regulations which could damage the Community. In my view, it has failed to do so in the case of the present proposal. However, I would not want to spare us as a Parliament a certain amount of self-criticism either. We too could have been more courageous in our demands in respect of reform of the own resources system, and ought to have paid less attention to the discussions taking place at national level.
At all events, we are going to have to be more consistent in the next round of reforms – which ought not to be too long in coming – if we want to ensure that the Union still has the financial power to act after enlargement and once it has additional tasks. That is why we want to commit the Commission to making the schedule tighter than it envisaged doing in its report. Allow me to make clear in a few points the work that we can and must get under way if we are to change the own resource system in such a way that it will also be possible for there to be progress towards reform.
Firstly, planning the European Union’s revenue must be undertaken in accordance with a number of fundamental principles, without which the system would be unable to function indefinitely. This means that we need a system that is transparent, uniform and balanced. In the long-term there must be a direct link between the citizens of Europe and the European Union’s financing of its expenditure, and for the benefit of those individuals who are now calling again for there to be an increase in taxation, I would like to make quite plain that of course there must be no increase in the overall tax and contributions burden borne by the citizens, but then that was the position we took up back in March as well.
In the foreseeable future, as long as the budget is financed by the Member States, this principle means in practice that financing must take place under the same conditions for all concerned. There must be no more derogations or rebates in the future. We in the Group of the Party of European Socialists have reached agreement on this demand, and that includes those individuals from Member States that continue to benefit from such derogations or are hoping to benefit from them soon. It represents a great step forwards and I am very proud of it. Indeed, I would call upon all the groups to support this compromise, which will be presented to them in the form of an amendment.
Secondly, securing and consolidating our financial power to act also means acquiring new forms of revenue that we can truly call our own and that will replace the previous ones. But above all, it means not tampering with the only sources of income that are truly ours, that are the Union’s by right, that is to say, our traditional own resources. But this is exactly what will happen if the Commission’s proposal is implemented. If the refund – to be retained by the Member States – of the costs associated with the collection of these traditional own resources were to be increased by 150% then such fears would certainly be justified. Unfortunately, the majority in the Committee did not support my request to leave this refund at 10%. Personally speaking though, I am able to warmly endorse the present draft amendment, expressive as it is of the desire not to raise the amounts Member States are permitted to retain to 25%, for this would leave the traditional own resources intact."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples