Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.3.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address just three issues, three key words, in our debate today on the guidelines for planning the 2003 Budget.
Issue No 1: enlargement, which will of course play a larger part in 2003's Budget procedure than it has done in previous years. Looking closely, though, at how much pre-accession aid can drain away today – and we have heard a certain amount about this in agriculture – there are still things that must be done both by us and by the candidate countries. It is not enough to enable them to get the hang of the programmes and the management structures as well, and then require only 3500 posts up to 2008, all of which is described as ‘enlargement costs’.
I wish, though, also to appeal to my fellow Members of this House, and warn against using budgetary sleight-of-hand to take money intended for enlargement under category 8, shove it under category 7 and fund pre-accession aid from it. That is not the Commission's doing, but rather an amendment proposed by Members of this House. I would ask them, in that event, to be honest, go home and tell their own Ministers of Finance that we need the Financial Perspective to be revised, and that enlargement is underfunded. Using such tricks to try to fund enlargement is something I can only warn against. I wish to express my gratitude to the Commission for the position they have taken on this subject, which also expresses the view of the Group of the European People's Party.
Issue No 2: foreign policy. I will keep this very brief, and tell you once and tell you clearly that I am slowly getting steamed up by the fact that a lunch for the European Union's Foreign Ministers costs us on average EUR 100 million. That is just not practicable in the long term. There is more to come. We are now suddenly supposed to take over further activities, whereas the Member States said months ago that they would finance them themselves. Let me mention only ‘Amber Fox’ as a key example. Now they are suddenly supposed to be funded by the Community budget, which is utterly extraordinary. Let the Council state which of the European Union's activities it can do without, and then funding can be provided on a serious basis.
Issue No 3: agricultural policy. I think we do not need to use the Budget procedure to reinvent agricultural policy, but I do of course expect the Commission to submit its proposals on the Mid-Term Review in good time, so that we are in a position to incorporate whatever is of budgetary value into the framework of the 2003 Budget procedure. On that point, let me observe that, as the budgetary authority, our participatory roles in the rural development programmes and in the area of traditional income aid are different and that the Commission should please bear that in mind so that it can go ahead on time.
Let me conclude by thanking Mr Färm and Mr Stenmarck most warmly for their good cooperation. I am sure that we will be able, by the end of the year, to present a sound Budget. It should not be left to Parliament. I hope that it is not left to the Council either."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples