Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-256"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.9.2-256"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, I concur with all the previous speakers who have said that the debate on the future financing of the Union is still in its infancy, and indeed we may stand on the threshold of some rather hard bargaining. It is therefore, as my fellow Member Mr Böge said, far too soon to talk about figures, ceilings and minimum allocations, but what do we actually think of the Commission’s basic approach?
Let me begin with what we perceive to be good points. The Commission is proposing a different set of budget headings from those to which we are so accustomed. It is also proposing a somewhat different aggregation structure for the individual EU policies. One of the new categories is to be sustainable growth, and another will be conservation and management of natural resources. This is the result of the Commission having paid very careful heed to Parliament’s frequent discussion of budgetary priorities. We want to become the most competitive economic area, and we want to preserve a decent world for our children and grandchildren. About four fifths of our budget is to be devoted to this aim. ‘Wonderful’ is all I can say to that!
A German saying, however, tells us that there is no light without shadow. The main shadows are in those areas where the Commission has kept its own counsel. I cannot find any reference to its ideas and proposals as to how the European budget is supposed to acquire the funds we intend to devote to the pursuit of our policies. It would have been better if the Commission had accompanied the financial perspective with its ideas on how to reform the Union’s own resources. That would have forestalled several squalid discussions about Member States’ contributions, but perhaps the Commission can still plug these gaps. I hope it does."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples