Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the opinion of the Committee on Budgets is in a way summed up in paragraphs 2, 3 and 40 of the motion for a resolution; but you will understand that I will not give in to the temptation to end my argument here. Please allow me therefore to illustrate and expand on it a little.
We totally agree with the phrase in paragraph 2, which says ‘profoundly regrets the fact that the Treaty of Nice has only given a timid response’. This is one of the great frustrations of the Committee on Budgets: that we have not been able, at this time, to deal with and resolve the budgetary issues before entering into the effective process of enlargement.
In paragraph 3 of the proposal of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs it says that the Conference makes ‘the decision-making process within the Union more confused and less transparent’. In this regard, and from the point of view of the budget, I will just say that if you look at the budgetary payments and compare them with the votes of the Member States in the Council, the voting procedure will perhaps not appear so confused.
Turning to certain budgetary aspects, we, as I said, expected more ambition from the Member States, we hoped that they would now deal frankly with the issue of the budgetary procedure and that they would even choose, if you like, a model such as that in the German constitution, which has a ‘financial constitution’ section, which provides for financial compensation (
between the Member States, the
of the German Federation. This was the right time to do it without waiting any longer.
There is still complete ambiguity with regard to the meaning of the Interinstitutional Agreement, to the point where there are 5 articles in the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline which provide for majorities not laid down in the Treaty. This legal problem has not been resolved in Nice. This frankly causes frustration in Parliament. We would have liked to have seen the financial perspectives set and defined, knowing that it was going to be a particular advantage to the European Union but not to Parliament.
This time, the financial perspectives are mentioned in the Treaty but not defined, which means that we are not progressing much. New activities and new spending are proposed, and it is presupposed that the European Parliament will agree, but the financial means for it are not provided for.
Because time is at a premium, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address the President-in-Office of the Council because I have pointed out our different cultures, policies and traditions, but there is one thing that unites us all: Parliaments were born in Europe to represent the citizens by controlling public spending and approving the spending of the sovereign. The budget is at the centre of representative democracy and if we want a representative democracy in Europe we must make much more progress on the budgetary procedure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Finanzausgleich)"1
"lander"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples