Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.4.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, just about everybody is bemoaning the so-called failure of last weekend’s Summit in Brussels. What is positive about the outcome is that we need not worry in our debates about the threat that the Council will touch Parliament’s say in the budget.
At the same time, Parliament should realise that it is mainly the Member States that cough up the money to finance the European Union’s policy. According to an old democratic rule, whoever pays can at least share in decision-making. Moreover, we take the ultimate decisions about the taxpayers’ money. They are entitled to guarantees that their money will be spent wisely.
The rapporteur, Mr Mulder, has presented a modest budget, for which I would like to applaud him. The Council, Commission and Parliament have the responsibility for sound budget management, an important area in which the Commission has dropped huge clangers, failing to deliver on its emphatic pledges from 1999. Reforms are still required to improve management and transparency. In addition, a great deal of work is to be done internally so as to create an organisational culture in which taking responsibility and rendering account are considered to be normal.
I like the amendment tabled by Mr Mulder, Mrs Gill and Mr Garriga Polledo, but surely they are not so naïve as to believe that the Commission’s reforms can be completed by next spring? I would sooner say that they have only just started properly.
One major point of concern is still the enormously high outstanding amounts for the structural funds. They amount to no less than EUR 92 billion, almost an entire annual budget! The strict application of the N+2 rule is a first necessary measure in order to address this problem. At the same time, the policy must become a great deal more coherent. I would therefore suggest for the structural funds policy to focus on Objective 1, for which only the poorest regions qualify. Other forms of structural policy, especially those for the benefit of richer regions, often appear to frustrate labour mobility or lead to distortion of competition. What is also often the case is that national or regional authorities put forward the least effective projects for European aid.
Export refunds are very susceptible to fraud. Those for live cattle should be abolished altogether, certainly when these are exported to countries that are exempt from EU import levies. This is simply asking for fraud carousels. Would the Commissioner promise today that she will present a proposal on this topic before long?
In general, the European Union should let the proximity principle play a much greater role in external policy. The fact is that Member States continue to pursue their own foreign policy anyway. Internationally, they form the key players. The European Union should set itself to coordination and mutual harmonisation, as well as funding emergency aid. Support to the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan becomes the European Union much better than many other forms of external policy. This is why I am disappointed that many in this House are not prepared to set aside substantially more money for the reconstruction of Iraq. Now that it is curtains for the dictator, Saddam Hussein, this would be more than ever appropriate.
I regard subsidies from the EU budget to European think-tanks and organisations promoting the European idea as misplaced. We should not get involved in imposing a unilateral opinion on the citizens. Moreover, these are private foundations that do not serve a general interest, but at best make the European Union even more remote from the public."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples