Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.9.3-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as an instrument, the budget is eminently suited to making political choices. In the course of our discussions on the budgetary guidelines for 2001, we are inevitably faced with the question as to what priorities we should set for European policy over the coming years. The rapporteur, Mrs Haug, cites four priorities, some of which could be described as dubious. What concerns me more, however, is that she scarcely mentions the top priority for the coming years, i.e. enlargement, and when she does it is uninformative. Does she want us to wear blinkers? More European integration, more social and cultural programmes, more employment: it is all very reminiscent of the outdated notion that social change can be effected by government policy, but neither the current Member States nor the candidate countries stand to benefit from an expanding package of tasks. The idea is gaining ground that the European Union’s package of tasks must come up for discussion, a point Commissioner Kinnock made too.
I am delighted that Mrs Haug wants a report on the aforementioned package of tasks, but the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion as far as she is concerned. After all, it is evident from paragraph 4 that she wants to maintain all the existing programmes. If that is to be the point of departure, and given that she even advocates fresh tasks, any discussion on key tasks is doomed to failure. We should enter into a discussion of the key tasks with an open mind, and be prepared to learn from past mistakes.
Last year, the European Parliament brought the financial ceiling up for discussion at an early stage by seizing on the financing for Kosovo and the entire Balkans as leverage in our efforts to obtain a review of this ceiling. As one might expect, the Council has not got round to it yet. What are the financial frameworks for Agenda 2000 worth when, only a year on, we are no longer honouring them? Mr Prodi’s statement to the effect that more than EUR 5 billion must be placed on the table for the Balkans in the years to come, was rash, to put it mildly. He raised hopes without consulting the budgetary authority, nor did he give any indication as to where the money was supposed to come from. Any politician should know that new expenditure must have the requisite financial cover. This point is made in two amendments, which I drafted, among others.
We await the Commission’s multiannual planning next month. It apparently intends to look to the agriculture budget to cover the first tranche of EUR 300 million. In common with paragraph 22, I am against making one budgetary category, i.e. agriculture, take all the strain of our financing needs. Agenda 2000 has just put an end to what was previously such generous budgeting for Category 1. There is more scope for this in other categories to my mind; the Structural Funds, for example. As the rapporteur herself says, the “large, the very large accumulated backlog” also continues to be the actual ceiling, the spending goal for the Structural Funds. The rapporteur even wants to see this backlog used up in one go next year! This is all very worrying, because enforced spending of funds plays into the hands of fraudsters and damages efficiency.
On a final note: rapporteur Ferber’s request for a Commission proposal on a statute for political parties. That is a matter for the parties themselves, irrespective of the fact that European parties are widening the gulf between the general public and European politics."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples