Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000518.4.4-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Ferber’s report, which we are debating today, highlights the need for a more rigorous budget policy for our institution. We are in favour of this.
The limited increase of 2.28% in Parliament’s budget proposed for the financial year 2001, which works out at EUR 987.8 million, seems acceptable, all the more so as this proposal uses a realistic inflation rate of around 2%.
The amount proposed corresponds to 20% of the appropriations for heading five and therefore respects the ceiling which the European Parliament itself set for 2001.
However, in view of the need to deal with the consequences, including linguistic ones, of future enlargements, this limited increase in the budget of our institution more than ever requires rational and responsible management of this budget.
In terms of staff policy, an analysis should therefore be carried out, as requested in the report, of the current profiles of the institution’s staff, in the light of Parliament’s clearly changing needs, in order to make the best possible preparations for the necessary structural adaptations.
With regard to the Court of Auditors’ comments on the expenditure of the political groups, the resolution seems to be heading in the right direction by inviting the Parliament’s Bureau and Secretary-General to achieve complete transparency in the use of appropriations. The French delegation of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group cannot, however, accept the idea of entering appropriations intended for European political parties on a separate budget line. We have absolutely no doubt that this would eventually favour the alliances, associations and groupings of European political parties with an essentially federalist and integrationist aim.
With regard to language, this is by nature one of the most sensitive issues as it affects our identity, culture and pride. We are all more or less aware that the current situation cannot continue, even less so given the imminent enlargements.
As a result, it is up to us to reflect and to act wisely and carefully, without upsetting any sensibilities, but also without wasting any time. One of the possible ways forward could be to recognise for each of us, as the elected representatives of our people, the inalienable right to speak in our own language. This would then be interpreted or translated into one of the three most widely used languages according to the demographic, cultural and economic factors which prevail in the European Union. These three languages are clearly French, German and English. In this way, respect for the identities, nations and cultures of Europe and cost-effectiveness in the daily work of the European institutions could be combined.
This solution would also have the virtue of recognising the three main cultures and origins of the European Union in its current composition, namely the Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic components. This solution would also offer the undeniable advantage of benefiting all the European candidate countries whose first foreign language is French, German or English. Finally, whereas one of these languages is particularly important in Europe, the other two are used worldwide."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples