Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-207"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.13.2-207"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Prodi multiannual financial package is now referred to as the Barroso multiannual financial package, as long as it is based on 1.14%, although to me, 1%, 1.14%, 1.24% ... is not of the essence. The real debate is about the question whether we are prepared to actually pay for the political priorities included in the new European Constitution. It is a case of putting your money where your mouth is, therefore. It is precisely in that area that our citizens have seen European leadership fail too often. I have six observations to make.
The first is that Europe must be a social Europe, but in most countries, private and public investments in education and research are trailing behind. The cuts are harsh at 3%, but there is not enough room for extra investments in research and education. The golden rule is not an option in the Stability Pact.
Secondly, we are not prepared to make the real switch from agricultural subsidy to rural and environmental policy for the sake of internal social cohesion and our priority, which is knowledge. This would create actual room for knowledge innovation in the countryside and in the urban areas, with priority being given to the ten new acceding countries. In Europe, we say in the Constitution that we want Europe to have a central role in the world.
At present, one in five people across the globe have no access to education or health care. We talk about millennium objectives and about 2015, but what we see are, in fact, levels of spending by the EU Member States and by the EU itself that are far below par in this respect, despite resolutions by this House. We want the Commission’s new plans and the Commission communication about development policy to be given priority in January, with broad backing from Parliament, for these millennium objectives in Heading 4: 35% for the millennium objectives and 20% for basic education and basic health care. Mr Borrell was right in saying that if it is not in the budget, then it does not exist. That, then, is why we want it.
The fourth is that bad European leadership is at its most prominent in external policy, with major decisions, but no funding. We want a Middle East policy overnight, and we get the funding from the budget to fight poverty in Africa. We want a new neighbourhood policy. All well and good, but the money is once again taken from the budget to fight poverty in Asia and Central America. Each objective deserves its own budget. We should not have to shift funding around.
The fifth is that we want national fraud and accountant certification bureaus in order to guarantee swift and fraud-proof implementation and subsequent approval in each country. We are still far too vulnerable on that score.
Sixthly and finally, the public wants to see that each country makes a fair contribution to the combined European budget according to its own capacity. If that is 1% or 1.15%, so be it; as long as it is done according to the capacity and the means of each country. Equal shares. That applies to the Netherlands as well as to other countries. Only then will we receive the support of our European citizens for a truly serious policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples