Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.1.3-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Convention was set up because the Heads of State and Government themselves had failed to make the European Union more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. National governments took part in the Convention’s public discussions and have rubberstamped the end result. Now, however, safely behind the IGC’s closed doors, they feel free again to modify the outcome. For example, there is an amendment that aims to change the annual budget procedure so that the lowest amount will automatically apply in respect of budget items on which the Council and Parliament have failed to reach agreement. The Dutch Government is justifying this by stating that in so doing, the Council and Parliament become equal, for indeed, whoever suggests the lowest amount, then that amount is final. At the same time, the Dutch Government claims, with a straight face, that it is fighting for Parliament’s full budgetary rights. One of two things could be at work here. Either the ministers do not understand the implications of their proposal and are therefore not that intelligent, or else they are trying to fog this issue to such an extent that they need not give public account for destroying Parliament’s democratic right to reject the budget, a right that has obtained for almost thirty years. In which case they are leading everybody up the garden path.
Another painful area is the financial perspectives for the multiannual budget. They have been in place since 1988, but in the form of interinstitutional agreements. Parliament can breach such an agreement at any time, and thus has an important means of power at its disposal. The financial perspectives will now be included in the Treaty. As a consequence, this means of power will be taken away. What is worse is that some governments, in imitation of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, would like Parliament, from now on, to have only an advisory right when the multiannual budget is laid down, even though we are now equal partners.
Not only Parliament, but also our own ministers competent in all the different fields are at risk of falling victim to the undisguised takeover attempt on the part of the Finance Ministers. I find it bizarre that these national ministers still have not caught on to this. Let me give you an example. If the European Parliament and the Culture Ministers have an agreement on a European multiannual cultural programme, then the Finance Ministers can ultimately wipe this off the table simply by suggesting a lower amount and demanding that legislation be adapted to the budget instead of the other way round. Who exactly is calling the tune in Europe? The legislative authority that Parliament has acquired could become an empty shell when it has little power to ensure that sufficient funds are available to implement legislation. The Heads of State and Government are threatening to replace thirty years of budgetary right by the omnipotence of the Finance Ministers behind closed doors, and this shows little evidence of democracy or transparency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples