Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-178"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20040210.9.2-178"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, President of the Commission, it seems that some of our Member States have been seized by a seven-year itch: it is the irresistible urge to scratch around for the best financial deal for themselves. But in their rush to advance their own interests, the Member States are failing to ask what might constitute the best deal for Europe. Liberal Democrats and Reformers believe that governments should first, as the admirable Mr Colom i Naval has suggested, take a long, hard look at what they have asked the European Union to do, and then give the institutions the resources they need to do the job. Governments should also ruthlessly tackle waste and fraud, most of which occur at national level, and target spending on our priorities to ensure maximum value for money for taxpayers. Britain, France, Germany and three other states have formed an unholy alliance, united only by their zeal to keep down their budget contributions. Even putting aside the wider benefits that the European Union buys, the EU needs a budget consistent with its responsibilities. This year we will integrate ten new Member States. Europe is charged with important new responsibilities abroad, and with the task of keeping us safe from crime and terrorism at home. Reviving growth requires progress on the ambitious reform agenda of Lisbon. Do the six states really expect the EU to do all of this on 1% of Europe's gross national income? With spending set to reach 1.11% of GNI in 2006, a ceiling of 1% in 2007 means not recalibration but cuts. None of these Member States can tell us where the axe will fall. Indeed, I would wager that they cannot even agree among themselves. My warning to Europe's citizens would be : buyer beware! These are the same governments who agreed in 2002 to a 1% annual increase in spending on the common agricultural policy. If Member States demonstrated a real willingness to reform the CAP further, it would be easier to take seriously their calls for parsimony. As it is, we are running this Union on just over 1% of the gross national income of the Member States, when the budget of the Federal Government in the United States is 20% of GNI. We must continue to strive for savings where possible, but also equip the Union to meet the objectives we have set ourselves. My Group believes that the key to better value lies in a modest budget increase, leaving a safe margin for unforeseen expenditure, linked to reform, less waste and more intelligent investment. Not promises of smarter spending from Member States with no will to deliver it."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph