Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050607.25.2-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin my remarks by congratulating the Temporary Committee, its chairman and its rapporteur on their outstanding work.
Mr President, while Parliament is agreeing its position the negotiations in Council continue. Today we have a meeting of Ecofin. On Sunday we have another ministerial conclave, in which I will be taking part.
I would like to say a few words on the latest proposals from the Luxembourg presidency. I would like to begin by thanking the presidency for its energy and for the determination it has shown and brought to this matter. It is fair to say that many dismissed any chance that this negotiation could make much progress, but the presidency has proved them wrong. In this respect, I would like to stress the very good cooperation between the Commission and the presidency in the handling of this matter since January.
For me the crucial test must remain the ability of the proposals to deliver the political goals we have set. We cannot fall into the trap of once again letting the gap widen between our political promises and the reality that follows. In some areas the presidency has found a way forward. On cohesion policy, for example, substantial savings are proposed, but the overall balance remains – a balance between the compelling imperative to commit new resources in the wake of enlargement and the need to respect the fact that the mission of the cohesion policy is to work across the whole Union.
On own resources, the presidency has shown its well-known pragmatism. The proposal made includes the freezing and phased reduction of the UK rebate, and some compensation for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, to take account of their excessive budgetary burdens. For the sake of transparency and fairness, let me tell you that this is certainly not the ideal solution. As you know, the Commission had proposed a different solution. However, the conditions needed to make it viable have not been met and the solution envisaged by the presidency has the merit of preventing this issue from spiralling into real crisis in the coming years. That is where we are.
I do not believe that we can afford to hold the Union’s policies to ransom while we chase the illusion of a better arrangement. We must accept that the presidency has found a balanced solution.
In other areas, however, I must say that, compared with the Commission’s proposals, those put forward by the presidency are disappointing, and sometimes truly problematic. If you look at the newer areas of policy – supporting competitiveness for growth and employment, making freedom security and justice more concrete, giving a new impetus to our external policies – these proposals will require the Union to make very real sacrifices.
This is not about numbers on the page. It is about concrete actions which the Union has agreed to take forward and which it will be enabled to realise.
To take the area of competitiveness for growth first, Heading 1A, we all know that this is mainly about investing in knowledge. This effort will be diluted if not backed up by investment. Of course, in the context of the overall picture, the increase proposed by the presidency – some 37% on average compared to 2006 – is not insignificant. It would still allow investment in our future. But let us be honest with ourselves: it would not allow us to meet all of the goals that we have set.
Turning to other new policy areas, again the increase for freedom, security and justice looks generous on paper, with a proposal to double the 2006 levels. However, judged against the policy needs set out in the aid action plan approved by the European Council, the shortfall suddenly looks to be a real problem. Hard choices would have to be made if this proposal were accepted.
As for our external policies, there is a strong consensus that Europe needs to be a more effective and vigorous actor on the world stage. But under these proposals we would have to scale down our ambitions drastically. Do we cut back on pre-accession, on stabilisation in the Balkans, on neighbourhood policy, on humanitarian aid? At a time when ministers are making a fresh commitment to increase official development aid by EUR 20 billion a year by 2010, frankly I find that troubling. So, in those areas we run the risk of failing to fully deliver on our promises and previous commitments.
The accuracy and quality of analysis, coupled with the high quality of debate in the Temporary Committee are indicative of Parliament’s desire to make a positive contribution to this extremely important debate on the Financial Perspective.
I take comfort in the position of Parliament as laid down in the draft resolution today. I do not believe that it is impossible to maintain the balance proposed by the Commission, to respect the legacy of the foundation policies while giving a new reality to new policies. I look forward to working closely with Parliament in the coming days and weeks with this goal in mind.
I know that you will agree with me that, if we succeed in reaching an agreement in the European Council next week and in concluding an interinstitutional agreement, we must face up to the consequences. It may prove impossible to reach an agreement without trimming our ambitions.
Let me be clear, once again. We want a consensus for the next European Council. We need it. But at the same time we have to say no to a cut-price agreement that will mean a cut-down Europe and a cut-down project for the Europe of ambition and solidarity that we want. We all need to keep that in mind at a time when we are so keen to try to find a new impetus for Europe.
As we approach the final stages of the financial perspective negotiations, as we prepare for an agreement that would show how committed we are to making Europe work, strong and positive collaboration between the European Parliament and the Commission is needed now more than ever. Together we can make a difference for the benefit of the citizens of Europe.
I feel that Parliament’s commitment is crucial, because Europe’s political project is at stake. The task now is to translate our political will into financial commitment and I am delighted to see Parliament’s determination and resolve in assessing the resources the Union needs to accomplish its project.
I am similarly pleased to note that the resolution before Parliament has demonstrated that there is a great deal of convergence between the views of the Commission and Parliament. The fact that the Commission and Parliament find themselves on the same wavelength does not come as any surprise to me. We have opted to use the same method – that of defining our political project and our priority actions, then deciding on the resources and the appropriate budgetary instrument for these decisions to be put into practice.
I still believe that this is the most appropriate means of convincing European taxpayers that their money is being used properly.
Ladies and gentlemen, I share Parliament’s conviction that we must all work in the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement that embodies the Financial Perspectives. As the Presidency representative, whom I greet, has just pointed out, the agreement on the Financial Perspectives is not an agreement between the Member States in the European Council. It is an agreement between our three institutions, which share responsibility for it and each of which has a crucial part in drawing it up. This interinstitutional agreement is the expression of a partnership between the Council, Parliament and the Commission. I believe the adoption of Parliament’s position today and the institutional trilogue next Wednesday are key steps along the way to reaching an agreement. And I believe it is very important that an agreement is reached soon.
Even if there are a number of differences, our respective thinking has brought our two institutions to conclusions that are in reality very close. I recognise that the resolution Parliament is examining today is full and balanced. I very much enjoyed discussing these issues with the Temporary Committee and I also appreciated the frequent contacts I had, even informally, with the President of Parliament. I am pleased to find that these conclusions have met with a very broad consensus within the political and parliamentary groups.
I do not intend responding in detail. I would simply like to underline one major political point at this stage. Obviously, we share a common vision of the Union and of its financial resources as a means of action. It will be crucial for us, the institutions, to maintain our alliance on the project until negotiations are concluded. Given the divergent positions of the Member States, the negotiations which have begun will be very difficult, even if we have every confidence in the Luxembourg Presidency’s ability. However, despite the major obstacles I still believe it is both necessary and possible to conclude an agreement in the next few weeks. It is necessary because the absence of an agreement would delay the implementation of policies and deprive the citizens of the policies they are waiting for. Of course, the political atmosphere today is not necessarily favourable. Uncertainty often undermines the willingness to compromise. An agreement would, however, demonstrate to our fellow citizens that despite the serious difficulties we are experiencing today, Europe is capable of acting, that it has a project for the future and that it is capable of putting it into effect.
In other words, we must avoid prolonging a debate that reveals things that could divide us and concentrate on the things that bring us together. We must also respond with action to those who think Europe could grind to a halt and fall into paralysis. It may seem paradoxical, but I believe the difficulties we are experiencing are also an opportunity to restate our ambition for Europe collectively. That is why I am saying that it is even more necessary now that we find a compromise in the next few weeks. I am therefore convinced that this agreement is within our reach and that we must seize this opportunity to put Europe back on the rails."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples