Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.7.2-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, words of thanks have already been addressed to Mrs Schreyer, the Belgian Presidency for its commitment, and to all fellow MEPs and co-workers. I would particularly like to thank my fellow MEP, Mr Costa Neves, for all the work he has done over the past year. For the equanimity and meticulousness which he employed, his willingness to take the contribution of other, also smaller, groups seriously and the way in which he managed to persuade everyone to adopt the same line, which was no mean feat.
At the start of the budgetary procedure, it looked as if the pain for the 2002 budget was mainly concentrated in heading 5. Needless to say, I was delighted with this as rapporteur. However, now, having reached December, we could say that Mr Costa Neves has yet again assumed the leading role, for Heading 4 is now also showing cracks again. For the third year running, we have had to supplement the budget by 200 million by calling on the flexibility instrument. We therefore continue to scrounge in order to fund the political tasks of the European Union. Despite this, it was once again possible to reach agreement with the Council. However, as far as my group is concerned, our support is not really heart-felt, and this has everything to do with the tragic rituals and traditions which typify the budgetary procedure.
The President-in-Office of the Council has praised the Community budgetary method and although, admittedly, this method always ultimately culminates in agreement, more than anything, the annual budgetary ritual is a rather irrational process. The Commission presents a proposal, the Council takes a huge slice off the proposed amount, Parliament adds a bit more, and we are then supposed to come up with something wonderful in the renowned consultation. It did occur to me to break up the cycle and to simply leave a number of Council cutbacks in heading 5 where they are, including the cutback at the Court of Justice. It did seem like a healthy exercise to let the Council come face to face with the effects of its actions and its unilateral obsession to remain well below the ceiling of the financial perspectives. Unfortunately, I did not do this. I have had feedback that that is what I should have done. I decided against it because otherwise the wrong people would yet again be penalised.
This view about assuming one’s responsibility fits in well with the idea that we also mooted at first reading, namely that political promises made by Heads of Governments and Ministers should be accompanied by a financial picture. We have drawn the necessary lessons in the reconstruction of the Balkans, and it seems fairer to me if it is indicated whether new tasks also require new funding, and – that is at the same time a promise – whether aid to a region in crisis will require cutbacks in peace projects in the Middle East or in projects against sexual violence in South Africa. What is at any rate a bonus is that this time, aid to Afghanistan featured as a prominent part of the consultation and, unlike in the Balkans, external pledges were not made at donor conferences first, upon which we were expected to pick up the pieces, but these were discussed during the consultations. I hope that this was not simply a question of good timing, but the start of a positive development.
Another bizarre aspect of the budgetary procedure is the implementation of the budget, and we as Parliament are also guilty of making empty promises. We want tens of millions of euros more for South America, for instance, without knowing exactly why only 60% of last year’s funding was spent. And each year, we intend to better monitor and adjust the Commission’s budget, which is no reason not to do it this year. My group will therefore grant priority to this aspect during the preparation of the 2003 budget.
However, my group
pleased with the minor changes in the Council’s budget in the area of foreign policy expenditure. Not a great deal of money is involved, but it is significant nevertheless. It is now clear that Parliament will from now on give its verdict about the Council’s budget in terms of operational expenditure, which is an improvement.
The budget is a means, not an end. It funds our activities for citizens in Europe and elsewhere, and if there is one slogan of which the European policy-maker cannot get enough, then surely it must be that Europe should be closer to the citizen. And you cannot get much closer than the people of Elsene, our neighbours in Brussels, and I am therefore delighted with the paragraph in the present resolution which urges us to draw up a sound inventory of what we need, and how we can provide for it, and also to take account of the interests of the citizens in the immediate vicinity, before we start making plans for new Parliament buildings.
I would thank the Bureau for all its efforts and I hope that the planned hearing will lead to positive results, also with regard to the conservation of the quaint little station. It is important to put forward great visions, but it is just as important to face up to the practical implications of these."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples