Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050607.25.2-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am very pleased to have this opportunity of addressing Parliament this afternoon before you vote on the resolution on the future Financial Perspectives. In accordance with the budgetary powers devolved on Parliament by the Treaty, the Luxembourg Presidency gives top priority to maintaining an open and unreserved dialogue with Parliament in this field. This is one of the most important questions facing the European Union at this present time. It also comes at a time when the European Union simply must not fail.
The same is true of Heading 3 A, freedom, security and justice. This objective is also a priority because it comes in response to the public’s concerns in the matter. In our latest proposal, it receives an annual real-terms increase of 18% compared to 2006, a rise of nearly 200% over seven years. The rates of growth for external relations, especially for achieving the Union’s global partnership objective, are still 5% in real terms and we have not included the EDF budget like you have.
Fourthly, the latest version of the negotiating framework goes into the question of resources in slightly more detail. There is no doubt that the European Council’s success will depend on agreement being reached on both expenditure and resources. In its quest for a solution, the Presidency has taken as its starting point the Fontainebleau conclusions of 1984 – I will not say Fontainebluff like Mr Juncker did. So far as resources are concerned, negotiations will only succeed if a satisfactory solution is found to the United Kingdom rebate. In this connection, the Presidency is proposing that in 2007 the amount of that country’s rebate should be equal to its nominal average over the seven-year period immediately preceding the last enlargement and that it should then decline with effect from the following year. I believe this is a fair proposal because we are all committed to the effort of solidarity that our Union’s enlargement represents.
Also in line with the Fontainebleau conclusions, which raise the question of budgetary imbalances for other countries, the Presidency has further proposed that specific measures be introduced for three countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, for the period 2007-2013. These measures would consist of a reduction in the VAT call-up rate, which the Presidency has more generally proposed freezing at 0.3%. It is clear that before a solution is reached on resources a number of other details still need to be examined, details which are not always minor and are often sensitive. Nevertheless, the Presidency is convinced that this approach is the most realistic basis for an ultimate agreement, provided everyone has the will to succeed and shows sufficient political will.
These are the main elements of the latest proposal, which has been distributed to the Member States and will be examined in Luxembourg on Sunday. It is the basis for an agreement in the Council. It will then be up to the Council and Parliament to translate it into Financial Perspectives in an interinstitutional agreement.
I also want to express our gratitude for the work done by the Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Union, which you chaired, Mr President. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his work. Your contribution to this complex and, to say the least, politically sensitive debate has been important in two respects. Firstly, Parliament has shown realism and taken a consistent approach. Secondly, with this report and this resolution you set as it were the main parameters for the negotiations that will follow those in the Council and which, in the end, will be just as decisive for the Financial Perspectives as those that take place in the European Council next week. In any case, as the Presidency takes every opportunity to point out, this first round of negotiations in the Council is only a first round, and Parliament’s agreement is also required if we are to have Financial Perspectives.
What is the state of negotiations in the Council? Let me explain to you how we see the situation in the Council and how we intend preparing for the debates on this matter, especially at the European Council that will be held next week. First of all, I would like to stress that the Presidency remains determined to reach an agreement at next week’s European Council. Nothing should be allowed to distract us from the important task of giving the European Union the resources it needs to accomplish the tasks that lie before it in the years ahead. The conclusion of an agreement in June is the best way of sending a positive signal and the only way of determining the scale of those resources early enough so that the various instruments and legislative programmes can be adopted and implemented at the right time. Today more than ever, the Union must show that it is still fully able to take decisions, that it is still capable of reaching compromises in a matter as crucial for its smooth operation as the Financial Perspectives and, hence, the budgetary policy for the years ahead.
You are familiar with the negotiating framework method that was successfully used during the last negotiations under the German Presidency and which enabled agreement to be reached in Berlin. That framework allowed us to whittle down the number of possible solutions and to reach a final agreement. The most recent version of this negotiating framework dates from the end of last week and will be examined by the foreign affairs ministers at the conclave to be held next Sunday evening. At the same time, the European Council President is holding bilateral meetings with his opposite numbers at which they are examining each other’s difficulties and trying to lay the foundations for a compromise that will be acceptable to all.
I would like to draw your attention to a number of aspects of this latest version of the negotiating framework. I will also comment on a number of points made in your report and in the motion for a resolution on the Financial Perspectives.
First of all, even before the debates in April’s General Affairs Council we clearly said that a number of cuts, which some find unfortunate and others inevitable, would be necessary in all fields if we were to strike a balance between highly divergent points of view as to the final overall level of expenditure. That is incidentally not entirely at odds with the thinking in your Committee. The latest version of the negotiating framework includes for the first time figures for each heading. Overall, the total of EUR 870 billion at which we have arrived, that is around 1.06% of the European Union’s gross national income, is close to the figures that have been discussed. Although this total is less than the Commission’s initial proposal, the figures for each heading nevertheless represent on average increases of between 5% and 18% annually compared to 2006. No one can therefore doubt our determination to continue providing the resources necessary to move forward with the Union’s policies. It is also true that the very weak growth in national budgets, which must not be overlooked, inevitably has consequences for the European budget.
Secondly, the debates in Council have been concerned chiefly with heading 1 B, that is cohesion policy. Contrary to what some people are saying, this heading has not been particularly targeted by the cuts. We have not made this heading the adjustment variable of a minimalist budget package. In fact, the Presidency agrees with Parliament that cohesion policy is the expression of the Union’s internal solidarity. The Presidency is therefore doing all it can to keep cuts in this field to a minimum. Overall, the expenditure for this heading in the latest version of the negotiating framework represents 0.37% of the European Union’s gross national income.
The Presidency has, however, proposed a number of changes to the mechanisms for allocating cohesion policy funds. It has done so following discussions that generally revealed – and not without difficulty, I have to say – a desire to give priority to funding the least prosperous regions and Member States. The Presidency has therefore adopted an approach based on the principle of solidarity, ensuring that resources are directed to those most in need. To do that, a slightly higher percentage of the ‘cohesion’ heading’s funds had to be allocated to convergence and the ceilings adjusted so that funds go where they are needed most. I know that some countries and regions are not happy with this approach. The Presidency is continuing to listen to them. However, while adjustments are still possible – and we are working on them day by day – our constraints are such that there is relatively little room for manoeuvre.
Thirdly, the Presidency is aware that the March European Council set ambitious targets for relaunching the Lisbon Strategy. Those targets will require additional financial resources. We are all committed to the objectives of competitiveness and employment. We all want to develop research more in the Union. We know, too, that the Union has to accompany the social and economic reforms we are obliged to undertake. Employment remains a major priority for us all, as do education and vocational training. It is true that the Presidency has cut the amounts proposed by the Commission, but the rate of growth by comparison with the present period remains considerable: 8% growth per year in real terms. Hardly any national budget – and I do not know of one – makes such an additional effort."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples