Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.3.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Kok report, as it is known, argues that there are synergistic effects and states that every euro spent on development projects by the EU may be worth considerably more than the same amount spent by the individual Member States. EU projects may, then, reduce the need for state appropriations to the individual Member States. Increased EU funding need not, therefore, result in an increased tax burden.
In the case of large projects such as space initiatives and those involving nuclear power, there may be economies of scale to be gained from carrying on projects at EU level. Otherwise I believe that the Lisbon Process should primarily be funded by the Member States themselves. The Lisbon Process must not be allowed to become the jumping-off point for a large number of new projects at EU level that require funding by the Member States.
In general, I think that the issue of whether national initiatives can be replaced by EU projects is an important one. I wonder whether there is any empirical evidence of the existence of synergistic effects. My experience tends to suggest the opposite: the more the EU invests in expanding its bureaucracy and the more legislation and directives it adopts, the more the public sector in the Member States grows. For each new official in Brussels, the total number of officials in the Member States increases by a factor of five, ten or twenty-five.
According to what is known as public choice theory, it is to be expected that each national bureaucracy will seek to maximise its influence and role. The more the EU takes over power from the bureaucracies in the Member States, the more these bureaucracies expand. There are many reasons for this. The new directives have to be implemented, monitoring must be tightened up. Moreover, the politicians who have lost their right of initiative seek out new areas in which to act and tell us that more resources are needed in order to strengthen their negotiating position in Brussels.
As an example of this, we only need to look at what happened on the launch of the euro. As the national central banks lost their real function – that of conducting monetary policy – the number of their service staff increased substantially. This same phenomenon can be observed in a number of areas.
In my opinion, the Commission should take the initiative and allow independent researchers, economists and political scientists to study the operation of the bureaucratic multiplier within the EU. It is important to stop this process, and one of the ways of doing this is by having fewer legislative directives and more voluntary agreements. If this is not done, it is likely that the biggest growth sector will prove to be public bureaucracy. Through our ambitions to harmonise, legislate and become involved in every conceivable issue, we run the risk of putting a brake on growth. The EU should, therefore, instead make more use of the institutional competition that resides in diversity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples