Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.3.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, when a delegation from this Parliament was visiting the People’s Republic of China some time ago, we were in Xiamen, in the south-east of China, and there was an island visible on the horizon. We asked what is was called and they said, “It is the unmentionable.” It was Taiwan and its name cannot be mentioned in China. Here the thing that we are not allowed to mention is ‘revision of the financial perspective.’
The needs of the Balkans have not come to an end, they are multiannual. So now what are we going to do? At the moment we are beginning to sacrifice MEDA, which went down from EUR 980 million in 1999 to EUR 741 million in 2001. It is the first victim of not having a revision. I wonder who will be the next victim?
I would like to know, Mrs Schreyer, what is going to be done with the initial proposal for revision of the financial perspective. The Commission has not withdrawn it. I would therefore like to know what you are going to do.
Are we going to continue to fund the Balkans with juggling, as we have done now, at the end of 2000, "pre-budgeting" things and then introducing EUR 200 million in the 2001 budget? What are we going to do in March? I know that it will be the job of the Swedish Presidency, but in March we need to look at the perspective for 2002, and what are we going to do? The matter of the Balkans will not have been resolved.
To be honest, I think that I have to recommend to this House that it approve the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument because, in short, it enables us to solve the Serbia issue and because it is a revision that no one is daring to call by its name.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we should almost be kneeling down to deal with this matter, because it is a religious one. In the Council’s religion it is forbidden to mention the word revision. That is crystal clear. But I challenge my esteemed colleague, the President-in-Office of the Council, to explain to me what the difference is between the revision of the financial perspective and the use of the flexibility instrument: the majorities are the same, and the amounts can be the same.
Apart from it being taboo, it is really difficult to explain why the Council refuses to recognise the need for a revision of the financial perspective.
What is more, of the thirty-eight revisions that the Community has had since 1988, which is when this system was set up, twenty-odd have been annual revisions. So not even the argument for annual or multiannual revisions is an excuse.
Perhaps another reason why we should discuss this on our knees is the attitude of some Members of this House, as all they seem to want to do is blindly obey the instructions of the Council.
We have really fought a great battle in order to achieve a 0.02% increase in the Council draft budget. I do not know whether this is a great success for this Parliament. It can even be seen in the Structural Funds, where the Commission told us that 8 000 million additional payment appropriations were needed, and the result is that we have cut them by 340 million, which is, of course, the request of the Council, not of Parliament.
I wanted to briefly point out that, when we adopted the financial perspective in force, in 1999, we were still – I say ‘
were’ due to the involvement of the Union – bombing the Balkans, particularly Serbia. And we left it that when the conflict ended we would revise the financial perspective. We agreed this between the Council and Parliament.
The Council refuses to carry out this revision – it seems that now we should have the information – and I want to warn you: using the flexibility instrument two years in a row, two consecutive years, in fact, in less than fifteen months, and the first time less than six months after the adoption of the perspective, is financially draining the flexibility instrument because it prevents it from being replaced and from possible accumulation, which is planned for up to 600 million. But it is also draining it politically and this is much more serious, ladies and gentlemen, because it could lead to Parliament having a complete lack of confidence in the very system of financial perspective.
To be honest, the Council is leading us to believe that the system is not satisfactory because one of the contracting parties is not fulfilling the political requirements involved in signing an agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"we"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples