Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-26-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041026.12.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are two particularly important reasons why we believe the EU budget for 2005 to be unsatisfactory and why we will vote against it. The first is of a formal and political nature. The draft budget for 2005 was drawn up at a time when it was assumed that Poland and nine other countries would become EU Member States, yet the draft was not discussed or drawn up with these countries. In Polish politics there is a principle according to which ‘nothing about us without us’ should ever be done. A failure to hold consultations demonstrates a lack of equality and a lack of respect for one’s partner. The second reason relates to substance. There are two issues upon which the EU should focus. These are firstly, the enlargement to include ten new countries, and, secondly, the slow-down in economic growth within the EU, particularly in comparison with South-Eastern Asia and the United States. The new Member States are characterised by low levels of wealth, backward economic structures, a lack of capital and extremely high levels of unemployment. The acceptance of these countries into the European Union should act as a catalyst for a change in EU economic policy to ensure that the backwardness I referred to is eliminated as quickly as possible. The draft 2005 budget is not a good response to this challenge, as it only represents 1.03% of countries’ GDP, and the amount by which budget expenditure will grow will not be much greater than the contributions paid in by the new Member States. As in previous years, a budget surplus can be anticipated, because it is likely that not all the money in the Structural Funds will be spent. This will mean that the new Member States, instead of receiving more from the budget than they pay in, will become net payers. I called for the 2004 budget surplus of EUR 5470 million to be earmarked for a fund to modernise the new Member States, but this did not happen. The Structural Funds will be increased, but only by a small amount. This is too slow a tempo, in view of the fact that consumption levels in the new Member States are often ten times lower than those in the old Member States. A little over EUR 1.4 billion is to be earmarked for direct aid to farmers in the new Member States. In a situation such as that in Poland, where the EU imposed significant restrictions on the majority of producers, aid cannot compensate for these losses. If it wishes to overcome its problems, the EU must understand that investment in the new Member States would be the most effective form of investment. If there is not such investment, the whole of the EU will face increasing economic and social problems, which is not what we want. I thank you."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples