Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-01-Speech-3-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041201.11.3-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the President of the Council has a positive attitude. He believes in dialogue and is convinced that we will reach agreement. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that he has distanced himself from the misbegotten requirement to have the budget at 1% of GDP, because that would, after all, render an agreement impossible. Fortunately, he has abandoned this scheme, because it goes without saying that a larger European Union tackling more problems needs more funds. Naturally, I do not have complete peace of mind yet, because there are plenty of Finance Ministers who mainly view 2006 as a basis for the budget of 2007 and think that the 2006 budget should certainly not exceed that of 2007.
My group takes a different approach to these matters. We look ahead to 2013 and to what we want to have achieved by that time. To the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Commission’s proposal forms a sound basis, but one that needs fleshing out quite a bit. That can be done, for example, by means of investments in the area of rural development, the environment, sustainable energy, research and exchange programmes for young people, teachers and artists. We also attach importance to flexibility. We need a framework which will enable us to meet the EU’s challenges, including those of 2013.
It is clear to my group that we should not only discuss the EU’s expenditure but also its revenue. The President of the Council spoke about a number of minor adjustments a moment ago, such as the limit on net contributions, but we also, of course, require something far more fundamental. These days, this whole discussion of net contributions often leads to irritation and to irrational spending, because much compensatory action is needed, and also to a budget that is far too low.
We should therefore discuss revenue on a more serious level. We should discuss a minimum tariff on environmental pollution or company tax which is siphoned off directly to the European Union. In that case, that amount is not added to national tax but replaces it. That will only benefit a rational discussion about the EU’s expenditure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples