Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.4.2-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate our rapporteurs, Mr Mulder and Mrs Gill, as well as the entire Committee on Budgets and those who have worked on preparing the 2004 Budget. It all happened with unaccustomed ease, within a completely new budgetary framework and in the context of an enlarged Europe.
I believe that our Committee has achieved, for this legislative period, a mature ability to compromise and has proved itself capable, under the leadership of our Chairman, Mr Wynn, of developing successful working methods, which have borne fruit this year in particular. Our group’s priorities have been heard, taken on board and reinforced. I am thinking in particular of Community policies to benefit companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. There have been all those policies that have contributed to the construction of a people’s Europe, such as town-twinning projects in the enlarged Europe, and also those such as the earmarking of funds for vaccination against poverty-related diseases, which make Europe’s active role in the world visible.
A trouble-free budget, then, but one marked by a general reduction in Parliament’s powers on financial matters. Yet again, the Council has challenged our rights and prerogatives. And for what? It is high time that questions were asked about the discrepancy between political rhetoric and budgetary feasibility.
Every year, I stand before you and denounce what has become a recurring problem. The Council’s frosty attitude is prejudicial to our legitimate budgetary ambitions. Furthermore, the Brussels fiasco has demonstrated what kind of future our Heads of State or Government have in store for Europe. We cannot achieve a Europe that is genuinely relevant to the lives of its citizens without major, far-reaching policies. And major, far-reaching policies require a budget to match.
The Council seems to have ignored this obvious fact, focused as it is on the Stability Pact and pandering to national self-interest. Is this the Europe that we want to build? It most definitely is not. It is, however, the Europe that the Council would like us to have. During the budget vote, we had an example of such inconsistency with information policy. We want to bring Europe closer to its people. Being concerned about the general public’s disaffection with European integration, we are trying to unite the people around major projects. All of this requires a coherent, ambitious information and communication policy and without Parliament’s intervention, funds set aside for this policy would have been subject to budget cuts from the Council.
What is most serious, however, is the reduction of our budget. Payment appropriations have fallen this year below 0.99% of GDP, their lowest level since 1987. I therefore endorse Mr Cox’s remarks and Mr Prodi’s analysis in response to the calls by six Heads of State for payment appropriations to be capped to 1% of the GNP.
Where is the consistency with the Lisbon Agenda, the Union’s blueprint for growth and competitiveness? Miracles do not happen, and nobody has ever managed to square the circle. Being Head of State or of Government is a position of responsibility; it is about ensuring the matching of means consistent with objectives. If the Council wishes to lead us into a dead end, it is up to us, the European Parliament, to remind it of its promises. I do not see how we can finance these crucial reforms on increasingly meagre resources.
MEPs are elected by the people; they are elected to take responsibility, and I am grateful to Commissioner Schreyer for reminding us of this. They are capable of preparing EU budgets within the bounds of fiscal orthodoxy, and will continue to be so, but they also know that the EU must abide by approved – jointly approved – political priorities. The Council must respect Parliament now, and in the future must show more trust towards this House, which enjoys the legitimacy of the ballot box."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples