Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.31.2-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Lewis, Mrs Grybauskaitė, ladies and gentlemen, our warmth towards the UK Presidency does not discharge us from the duty of expressing our disappointment with regard to the budget proposal that has been presented to us.
We have received no comforting signals on the financial perspective; in fact, I should say that we have received no signals at all. This, obviously, increases our concerns and the wave of scepticism among citizens; you rightly referred to citizens as – let us say – the main target of our actions, but among citizens there is enormous scepticism, because the European Union has not put itself in a position to implement its policies. Has the UK Presidency perhaps decided to give up on financial perspectives without even giving them a try?
Knowing the determination with which Prime Minister Blair faces his battles, we would have expected different signals and we continue to await them. But time and deadlines wait for no man: as Mr Blair well knows, faced with the European crisis, to merely scrape by would amount to giving up entirely. We in Parliament, and we hope that Prime Minister Blair and the UK Presidency feel the same, cannot stand passively by while Europe declines.
As pointed out by President Lewandowski, we expressed our disappointment very sincerely and firmly back in July, at the Conciliation Committee. We therefore also confirm today that – while we appreciate the speech by Mr Lewis, with its openness and the delicacy of its expression – all this needs to be translated into definite choices.
There is, unfortunately, a blatant contradiction between the passionate words spoken by Prime Minister Blair in this assembly and the choices the Council has made regarding the budget.
The cuts in the budget – or, if you prefer, your budget forecasts – in relation to the agricultural sector and the Structural Funds, although more limited than last year, confirm the tendency towards an unjustified severity. If adopted, they would open the door to adjustments during the year, accentuating the divide between expectations, which are, moreover, reinforced by a good funds implementation capacity, and the inadequacy of the resources themselves.
With regard to internal and external policies, our worries become fears: we are not convinced, Mr Lewis, by the symmetry between the funds allocated for commitments, which have been reduced by a lesser degree than the payment appropriations, nor can an analysis of the most significant cuts provide an explanation in terms of the political message that we all want to give. This is how the figures add up: 21 million less for businesses; 33 million less for transport; 279 million less for research; 131 million less for information; 20 million less for education and culture and 8 million less for freedom, security and justice.
There is an inconsistency between declarations in favour of growth, employment and measures designed to help young people, on the one hand, and on the other hand the reduction of funds in the budget headings, which are vital for achieving these objectives. I would like to ask you, Mr Lewis, what all of this means.
Does it mean that these policies are vital, but must be implemented by the national governments alone? This is the impression that I have; if it is right, then we are in direct conflict, since these policies must be implemented by the European Union too, in so far as they possess added European value. In my view, this is the fundamental political problem that we need to clarify first of all in order to take consistent action.
With regard to heading 4 – the notorious heading of ‘External actions’ – we are demanding that the flexibility instrument be used: with the estimates for heading 4 made beneath the maximum ceiling, as you are asking for, it is not possible to follow up on the traditional priorities of the European Union, the Millennium Goals, emergencies that have arisen over the course of the years – from Iraq to Afghanistan, the tsunami, horizontal programmes and geographical programmes, and now we want, rightly, to add sugar to the list. How is it possible to do all this? And what about the dozens of other measures that have been planned, and I say again, rightly so, as external actions? How can we implement such measures with a reduced financial allocation, without even applying the flexibility instrument?
I have the impression, and I shall use a proverb to express myself, that you want to have your cake and eat it. We are worried and disappointed, but we continue to ask for more reflection on your part and we await, Commissioner, more determined pressure from the European Commission. Within this Parliament, in our midst, the idea is growing of a shake-up, of action taken not on impulse but in a considered manner, to open up people’s eyes and recall everyone to their duties."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples