Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.13.2-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance regards the Commission proposals as a sound basis for negotiations between Parliament and the Council. I understand that you now want to refer to it as the Barroso package instead of the Prodi package. That is fine with me. After all, I am concerned with content. I very much welcome 1.14% of the GDP for investments in the Lisbon strategy, for money for an economic incentive in the poorer regions and for reinforcing the EU’s role in the world.
My group is also critical of your plans, though. After all, the future generations, our children, appear to be getting a rough deal. Investments in renewable, sustainable energy sources are inadequate, which is detrimental to the environment and is also feeding dependency on all kinds of dubious regimes in countries where oil flows in abundance. There is no separate fund for Natura 2000, there are insufficient resources for improving the reception of refugees in the region and the increase in funds for culture and exchange programmes for young people is too small. We would like to promote Europe a little less and ensure that people experience Europe a little more.
So, it is 1.14% ‘plus’, as far as my group is concerned. That is, indeed, quite different from what many Member States say. Some of those Member States still apply the 1% mantra. Meanwhile, they have sneakily become more radical, because I noticed that they are meanwhile applying 1% in the commitment appropriations instead of in the payments, which have traditionally always been somewhat lower. That would mean that up to 2013, we would have a budget that is lower than we have at present, while the European Union has enlarged. All the while, we are busy making lists of ambitions.
The Member States do not all follow the same view. The cuts in agriculture and the structural funds are, in fact, very controversial. A child will therefore realise that those will mainly remain intact in the major negotiations. Where will the cuts be made? In the funds for research, development, human rights, the environment, external policy and culture. Precisely those areas that are close to people’s hearts and that are given a visible added value if they are implemented at European level. A budget that is borne out of euroscepticism will only feed that euroscepticism even more. In that way, we will retain a Europe that is mainly focused on the market and the currency, and that is heading absolutely the wrong way.
I agree with Mr Lamassoure, who states that we need more active leadership from the Commission. If we really want – and that is what we uphold, after all – that Europe is a Europe that is united in diversity, we will need to actively invest in this. I would also like to call on the Commission to use us, because they do not know our position yet. We may be arguing in favour of 1.5%, because we are far more ambitious than the Member States. With 1.14%, the Commission will therefore be treading a middle path.
I therefore hope that you will gain the strategic insight to dispel all the smoke that is continuously being created and which we think may be indicative of a small fire – you may have dropped 1.07% somewhere in secret after all. We urge you to table a clear position about where you want to take this Europe. Show your leadership. Prove it in the negotiations, for that is the only way of creating a Europe that is not the old Europe of the market and of the currency, but a Europe that takes people and the environment to heart."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples