Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.3.2-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing the budget guidelines. In other words, we are discussing the political priorities we wish to set in the budget for the coming year. I would like to make it very clear that not every issue that arises in Europe is an EU issue. And not every EU issue has to be specified in the budget. It is certainly important to make these distinctions here. That is why I would like to concentrate on a couple of key areas.
The number one topic is, of course, the problem of how, in view of the foot-and-mouth crisis and the BSE situation, we can take budgetary measures – and all of this has an impact on the budget – to achieve sustainable agriculture guaranteeing optimal consumer protection and so that we can also sell European products in other parts of the world. That is the be-all and end-all for our farmers. This is an important task that we have to tackle together in the context of the 2002 budget.
The second topic is that the European Union is gaining ever greater importance because of the responsibility it is assuming in the area of common security and defence policy. I am gradually coming to the view that it is no longer acceptable for the 15 foreign ministers of the European Union – and it is perhaps worth asking if we really need so many – to travel around the world, dispensing European largesse, and making promises that we in the final analysis have to struggle to implement using budgetary sleight of hand. This is not acceptable. The Council really must consider if everything it is doing in this way is advisable.
The third key area is this: we are now coming to a very critical phase in the enlargement negotiations. And the more concrete the progress we make with enlargement is, the greater the impact on the budget. And this is also an area where we have to state in the clearest terms that it is not enough to tour the capitals of the applicant countries slapping everyone on the back and saying "Things are going well". Not if the Council balks at making available money and appropriate instruments when it matters and is tight-fisted when it comes to providing financial resources. That is just not on.
The final topic that I would like to mention, as it was also discussed in the Committee on Budgets, is justice and home affairs policy. This is, of course, a political priority that just involves a couple of established posts for Mr Vitorino. It does not have an impact on the budget. Justice and home affairs policy does not have an impact on the budget. That is simply a matter of fact. So we need to make a distinction between politically significant themes, including justice and home affairs policy, in the coming year. But this area is not a top priority for the budget guidelines, because it is not considered to be very significant.
I would, however, also like to mention the subject of administrative budgets. I would like to ask, without making any bones about it, who the administration is there for? It should not be an end in itself, but rather a means of delivering, organisationally speaking, what the various institutions have to achieve. That is why we in the European Parliament should consider at this point – in the middle of the parliamentary term, which actually falls at the end of this year – whether the way we work is correct across the board. I am not a great supporter of the way we now keep establishing one subcommittee after the other; for example, there is now talk of setting up a Subcommittee on Consumer Protection. Instead, we should be considering whether we can adapt the existing committee structures so that we can discharge our legislative responsibility more effectively. These are issues that we should certainly be discussing this year, and this naturally has an impact on the budget.
We are also discussing the financial perspective. The WTO will also have budgetary consequences for us in 2002. I have already mentioned the subject of enlargement and foreign policy, an area in which we are into our third year of special arrangements. We are talking about the Sixth Framework Programme on Research, which we want more money for. We are also taking about inflating administrative budgets. The Council now wants an additional EUR 10 million. So we are also coming under enormous pressure as regards administrative expenditure. In short, that means that all the grandiose announcements made by the Heads of State or Government in Berlin in March 1999 to the effect that Europe's ability to act would be guaranteed up to 2006 are proving, just two years later, to be unrealistic and inaccurate. I can accordingly only ask the Council to finally come clean here – to drop their trousers, as we say in German – and adjust the financial perspective, as otherwise we will not be in a position to meet what is required and expected of Europe in budgetary terms in the long run."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples