Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-01-Speech-3-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041201.11.3-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are opposed to the European Union, as it cannot resolve the problems Europe’s citizens and states are currently facing and will face in the future. The opposite is actually the case, as the EU aggravates and precipitates these difficulties, and gives rise to even greater differences, discrepancies and conflicts. In economic terms, Europe is confronted with two basic problems. The first is economic growth, which as a rule is slower in Europe than in the United States and Asia, with consequences such as high levels of unemployment and a fall in the competitiveness of businesses. The second is the growing difference in income levels between the rich old Europe and the poor new Europe.
There are also two main problems with regard to social issues. The first relates to values. I have in mind the crisis of the family as a key institution. This is linked to the second problem, namely the ageing of societies and Europe’s falling population. These demographic problems do not only affect Belgium, Germany and France but also poor countries, such as Ukraine, Romania and Poland. If we consider the EU’s actions or proposed actions in this field, it becomes apparent that the EU lacks a vision of how to solve problems relating to economic growth and reducing differences, for example. Above all, the EU lacks a strategy for reversing the trend of Europe’s depopulation.
Have there been any changes to the 2005-2006 draft budget as a result of the fact that ten new countries have joined the EU, and that the number of its citizens has increased from 380 million to 450 million, or by nearly 20%? No, there have been no changes. The 2005-2006 budget is based on an increase in expenditure of less than 10%, which, corrected for inflation, is in fact less than 7%, and equivalent to the contributions made by the new Member States. 2005 and 2006 are therefore lost years in terms of EU integration, and, worse still, differences may even be exacerbated. In the context of the budget forecasts for 2007-2013, this is a very bad sign. Was the 2007-2013 budget negotiated and agreed with the new Member States? Of course it was not, as it was submitted to Parliament by the outgoing Commissioners. What is more, the debate on this draft is taking place within a temporary parliamentary committee, which was appointed to undermine the existing Committee on Budgets and spread the responsibility for whichever solution was adopted. This is evidence of the way in which the EU’s procedures lack transparency and clarity. It also illustrated the horse-trading that goes on within, the Council, the Commission and Parliament.
The provisions of the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective provide no answer to Europe’s basic problems. If we adopt the principle that the budget will be set at 1% of GDP, the economic divide will only be widened. Worse still, as a result of the Lisbon strategy, expenditure on research and development will increase by 300%, with these funds going mainly to the old EU Member States, whereas expenditure on the Structural and Cohesion Funds will increase by only 30%, which means that backward countries will lag ever further behind highly--developed countries. We advocate a free, safe and rapidly developing Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples