Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.8.2-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am a new MEP, representing the June List – the new party in Sweden that polled 15% of the votes in the last European Parliament elections. I wish, in this House today, to take the opportunity to state what we consider should be the main trends forming the basis of EU strategy on financial policy.
The overarching principle should first of all be that the EU’s total budget expenditure should not exceed one per cent of the EU countries’ combined GDP. We thus support the position adopted by the governments of a number of countries, including Sweden’s. The ceiling on expenditure should apply not only to the forthcoming budget year, 2005, but also apply in the long term. With a credible, restrictive ceiling on expenditure, it will be possible to counter the views of critics who fear that the EU is developing into an all too dominant superstate. We do not believe that the EU should commit itself to far-reaching transfers between countries and regions. Experience shows that such transfer systems have a bad effect on long-term growth.
My second point concerns the fact that a number of countries now pay significantly more than what they get back in the form of subsidies. The net contribution should not, therefore, exceed roughly 0.4% of a country’s GDP. Each country should thus be able to refrain from receiving subsidies and so be able to reduce its total gross contribution to the EU. Such a system would make things significantly easier from an administrative point of view. The work involved in applying for subsidies at present uses up a lot of resources that could be used more productively.
The third point is that we reject the idea that the EU should procure its own resources by imposing taxes or duties upon us. It is only for national parliaments to deduct taxes and duties. Nor, with a strict ceiling on expenditure, would the EU’s own resources afford scope for increased expenditure.
The fourth point is that all the Member States should pay the same gross charge as a percentage of GDP. The special exemptions that exist must be removed.
My last point is that the EU must have a budgeting margin within the framework of the ceiling on expenditure so that the EU can act quickly in crisis situations.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that the EU must not promise subsidies for which there is no scope in terms of the ceiling on expenditure. Discussions of EU enlargement must be based upon realistic analyses of the economic consequences of enlargement. New commitments, programmes and promises of subsidies may only be honoured within the framework of the reallocation of old appropriations. A review of agricultural aid may, in the longer term, create scope for aid to countries with the weakest economies. We shall vote on the forthcoming draft budget in accordance with these intentions. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples