Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.1.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stress two points. On the one hand, that Ecofin’s proposals represent a step backwards with regard to the current situation in accordance with the Treaty of Nice. And on the other, that the financial perspectives must be accepted by the European Parliament and that Ecofin's proposals simply establish a consultation with Parliament.
Democracy is also a way to manage disagreements and today the European Parliament has the final word on more than 60% of the annual budget in the event that no agreement is reached with the Council. In Ecofin’s proposals a kind of automatic mechanism according to which the lowest quantity proposed is accepted replaces the political will of the institutions.
Ecofin’s proposals destroy the balance achieved in the Convention, and the European Parliament, knowing this, accepted a formalisation of the financial perspectives in the Constitution, restricting its own budgetary powers, because its power to reject the multiannual framework and to be able to decide against the Council's position by a very high majority of its Members, in the event of a disagreement in relation to the annual budgetary procedure, was recognised.
Ecofin's proposal to adopt the lowest quantity proposed in the event of there being no agreement removes any incentive to reach agreement. Whoever proposes the lowest quantity is bound to win. It is not that this limits the budgetary powers of Parliament, but that it turns the whole procedure into a mere Dutch auction.
My political group had great difficulties and held many discussions in relation to accepting the Convention's final proposal in the field of finances. All the eloquence of Mr Méndez de Vigo was required to convince us that this proposal represented a fair distribution of powers. It would not be advisable today to have to begin the whole process again. This would jeopardise the trust between institutions and would strip Parliament of its capacity to have a say in the drawing up of the Union’s budgetary policies.
My political group calls for the whole of the finance chapter of the draft Constitution to be taken as an indivisible and non-negotiable whole."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples